 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Figueroa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review2/4/2003
Ramon Figueroa (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits for the reason of his willful misconduct in reporting for work under the influence of alcohol. The Board affirmed the referee, and we affirm the Board. The facts of Claimant's discharge are not in dispute. On April 26, 1999, Claimant began employment at High Industries, Inc. (Employer) as a production worker and welding fabricator. On October 19, 2001, Claimant reported to work at 5:30 a.m. with bloodshot eyes and smelling of alcohol. When questioned, Claimant informed his supervisor that he had been drinking the night before, and he requested to be allowed to go home. Instead, at 6:00 a.m., Claimant was taken to the area manager, whose observations confirmed those of Claimant's supervisor. At 9:00 a.m., Employer escorted Claimant home; this was consistent with Employer's policy not to permit workers under the influence of drugs or alcohol to leave the plant on their own. Several days later, Claimant was notified by correspondence that he was terminated, effective October 19, 2001. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the Allentown Unemployment Compensation Service Center (Service Center) and they were granted.
Employer appealed the decision. After a hearing, the Referee determined that Employer had a substance abuse policy that prohibits reporting to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The policy was printed up in a manual entitled "Substance Abuse, Weapons, Stolen Property and Other Unauthorized Items in the Workplace," (Manual) and distributed to employees. The Manual provided that a determination of being "under the influence" could be established by professional opinion, a scientifically valid test or, in some cases, a layperson's opinion.
Upon review of the Manual and the credible testimony of Employer 's witness, who had personally observed the Claimant, the Referee concluded that the provisions of Employer's substance abuse policy were reasonable and that Employer had met its burden of showing the claimant reported to work "under the influence" in violation of Employer's policy. Reproduced Record 2a (R.R. ___).
The Claimant did not establish adequate justification for his violation; consequently, the referee reversed the decision of the Service Center. The Board affirmed the decision of the referee, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Claimant argues that Employer has not met its burden of proving willful misconduct. He contends that Employer tolerates alcoholic consumption so long as it does not exceed a certain level, i.e., .02 ug/l, which can only be ascertained by a scientific test. Because Claimant was not tested, Employer did not establish a violation of Employer's work rule.
Willful misconduct is defined as an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. Arnold v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Where an employer seeks to defeat a grant of unemployment benefits on grounds of willful misconduct, the employer bears the burden of proof. In the case of a work rule violation, the employer must establish the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule, and its violation. Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 596 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). In determining whether an employer's rules are reasonable
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|