M. R. Dawkins v. UCBR (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mona R. Dawkins, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 2195 C.D. 2007 Submitted: April 25, 2008 HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: June 5, 2008 Representing herself, Mona R. Dawkins (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), relating to willful misconduct.1 On appeal, Claimant asserts error in the Board s finding that she falsified her time records. For its part, the Board seeks dismissal of the appeal on the ground Claimant s brief fails to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Alternatively, the Board maintains the record supports its conclusion that Sunrooms America, Inc. (Employer) discharged Claimant for cause. We affirm. 1 Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). This section provides that [a]n employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week [i]n which [her] unemployment is due to [her] discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with [her] work ¦. Claimant worked for Employer at various locations as a promoter. Employer s procedures require employees, upon arrival at a work site, to sign the vendor log and to fax a time sheet to Employer. Employer also requires employees to telephone the corporate office to confirm receipt of the facsimile and to be placed on the clock. Before leaving the work site, employees must call the corporate office to be taken off the clock. Claimant knew of Employer s procedures and should have been aware that the failure to abide by them could result in discharge. On May 17, 2007, Employer scheduled Claimant to arrive at a work site at 11:00 a.m. Claimant telephoned Employer s corporate office and indicated she arrived at the location at that time. However, Claimant did not actually arrive at the work site until 12:15 p.m. When Claimant arrived at the site, she signed the time sheet indicating an 11:00 a.m. arrival time. Employer terminated Claimant for falsifying her time sheet. Observing Claimant offered no justification for her actions, the Board concluded Employer proved Claimant engaged in willful misconduct by falsifying her time sheet. Accordingly, the Board denied Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant appeals.2 2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were made, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Skowronek v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 921 A.2d 555 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 2 As a threshold matter, the Board maintains we should dismiss Claimant's appeal because her appellate brief does not comply with Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a). In part, the Rule requires an appellate brief to be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part ¦ the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a). Claimant s issue, the Board contends, is not properly developed and is wholly inadequate for review purposes. We decline to dismiss Claimant s appeal. In her statement of the case, summary of argument and argument sections, Claimant relevantly asserts: There is no proof of [the vendor s log] and no proof of the [telephone call], no proof of [the] telephone bill from [Employer]. ¦ I did not claim 1 hour on the time log production sheet. The [t]ime [l]og [p]roduction is incomplete. I was late and ¦ harassed, and accused of stealing company dollars. I didn t falsify my time sheet. Where is the proof that I claimed an hour to be paid? I think the [Board s] order is wrong[.] I did not falsify my time log. I did not steal company dollars. There is no proof of record, that I did these bad things. ¦ I disagree with the findings. My [t]ime [l]og [p]roduction sheet total hours worked none. Total hours claimed none. Please notice, [Employer s representative s] signature and message on my time log. He pays me for 1 hour, and accuses me of loss of payroll dollars from our marketing department. [Employer s representative s] signature should not be on my time log, I was late for work and he was aware of this. Claimant s Br. at 5-7. 3 Reviewing the brief as a whole, we recognize Claimant challenges the Board s finding that she falsified Employer s time records. Because the defects in Claimant s brief do not substantially impair our ability to conduct appellate review, we will address the issue presented. Preliminarily, we note, willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(e) includes behavior evidencing a willful disregard of the employer s interests, a deliberate violation of the employer s work rules, or a disregard of standards of behavior that the employer can rightfully expect from its employees. Frazier v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 833 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). The employer bears the initial burden of proving a claimant engaged in willful misconduct for purpose of determining the claimant s eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. Burger v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 569 Pa. 139, 801 A.2d 487 (2002). Once the employer establishes a prima face case of willful misconduct, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove her actions were justified or reasonable under the circumstances. Kelly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 747 A.2d 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Whether a claimant s actions rise to the level of willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. Burger. Of particular import here, our courts hold falsification of a time sheet disregards the standards of behavior an employer has the right to expect of an employee. Falsifying a time sheet in order to receive unearned wages constitutes willful misconduct. Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ. v. 4 Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Reivew, 565 Pa. 178, 772 A.2d 416 (2001); Seton Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 663 A.2d 296 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Here, Employer s representative testified Claimant knew of Employer s sign-in procedures, having been properly advised of the procedures two weeks prior to her discharge. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/24/07, at 9. He further testified Claimant telephoned Employer s corporate office and reported she arrived at the work site at 11:00 a.m. Id. Claimant also indicated on her time sheet that she arrived at the work site at 11:00 a.m. Id. at Employer s Ex. 1. Employer s representative, present at the work site on the day in question, observed Claimant did not arrive until 12:15 p.m. Id. at 8. When Employer s representative spoke to Claimant regarding her late arrival and improper sign-in, Claimant acknowledged her tardiness but offered no justification other than to imply she included travel time. Id. at 9. Reluctant to testify, Claimant stated she got lost on her way to the work site. Id. at 7. She otherwise failed to explain why she told Employer s personnel to clock her in at 11:00 a.m. when she did not arrive until 12:15 p.m. Claimant also failed to explain why she logged an inaccurate arrival time on her time sheet. Employer s representative s testimony supports the Board s finding that Claimant falsified her time sheet and, therefore, Employer discharged Claimant for cause. Claimant s assertions that the Board s determination lacks evidentiary support are contradicted by Employer s representative s testimony, 5 which the Board accepted as credible. As fact-finder, the Board has sole province over credibility determinations and evidentiary weight. Gioia v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 661 A.2d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Here, Employer s representative s testimony is sufficient evidence upon which to conclude Claimant committed willful misconduct. Anderson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 485 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). The Board s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, are conclusive on appeal. See Walsh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm the Board s order finding Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge 6 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mona R. Dawkins, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 2195 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2008, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED. ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.