Court Opinion

ID: 9729986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:56:18.25467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:01.806965
License: Public Domain

*388CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part.
Ellwood City Borough (Employer) has a drug and alcohol policy that specifically applies to Henry L. Turner (Claimant) and other employees who hold a commercial drivers license (CDL). (R.R. at 81a-85a.) Section TV of Employer’s CDL policy was adopted pursuant to federal regulations and provides for random drug and alcohol testing of employees holding a CDL. (R.R. at 81a-84a.) Claimant received training in Employer’s CDL drug and alcohol testing program in March of 1996. In addition to the provisions governing drug and alcohol testing, section V of Employer’s CDL policy provides that employees shall not use, sell, possess or receive alcohol and illegal drugs, or distribute or sell prescription drugs, while on duty. (R.R. at 84a-85a.)
In August of 2004, Claimant was selected for random drug testing as provided by section IV of the CDL policy. Employer was notified that Claimant tested positive for marijuana, and Employer terminated Claimant’s employment for fading the drug-screening test. The local job center determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(e.l) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),1 which states that an employee is ineligible for benefits for any week in which his unemployment “is due to discharge or temporary suspension from work due to failure to submit and/or pass a drug test conducted pursuant to an employer’s established substance abuse policy....” 43 P.S. § 802(e.l).
Claimant appealed, and the referee held a hearing on February 8, 2005. Employer presented the testimony of Stanley C. Kammerer, the vice president, director of toxicology and custodian of records for the toxicology department at Clinical Reference Laboratory. Kammerer stated that the laboratory results reflected positive for marijuana in Claimant’s specimen at a level of 96 nanograms per milliliter. On cross-examination, Kammerer acknowledged that he could not tell from the test results whether Claimant used marijuana or was under the influence of marijuana while on duty. (R.R. at 16a.)
Employer also presented the testimony of: Thomas Campbell, an employee of Apple Mobile Medical, who described the company’s acquisition process and documentation procedures; borough secretary Linda Pawlowski, who identified a copy of Employer’s CDL policy and Claimant’s acknowledgment that he received training with respect to Employer’s policy and procedures; and borough manager Joseph Cioffi. On cross-examination, Cioffi also acknowledged that there was no evidence that Claimant used or was under the influence of drugs while on duty. (R.R. at 39a.)
After identifying the issue before him as whether Claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(e.l) of the Law, the referee nevertheless concluded that Claimant was ineligible for benefits pursuant to section 402(e) of the Law,2 based on his findings that Claimant’s failure of the drug test constituted a violation of Employer’s rules. The UCBR affirmed and adopted the referee’s decision.
*389Because the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Claimant used drugs while on duty, as prohibited by section V of Employer’s policy, I believe that the UCBR erred in affirming the referee’s decision. I recognize that this court may affirm the UCBR on other grounds, and, therefore, I reluctantly concur in this portion of the majority’s decision.3
However, I strongly object to the majority’s analysis insofar as it eschews a literal reading of Employer’s rules in favor of a broad interpretation of Employer’s policy as a whole.4 It is well-settled that the deliberate violation of a work rule or policy is generally considered to be willful misconduct, rendering a claimant ineligible for benefits under section 402(e). It is also well-settled that, in order to be disqualifying, an employee’s violation of a work rule must be knowing and deliberate. BK Foods, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 119 Pa.Cmwlth. 632, 547 A.2d 873 (1988). An employee who had no notice of a work rule will not be denied benefits based on willful misconduct. Tongel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 524, 501 A.2d 716 (1985). By interpreting an employer’s rule or policy as including a requirement that is not explicitly stated in the rule or policy, the court imputes knowledge to a claimant that he or she may not have had. Because knowledge of the work rule or policy is a prerequisite to a knowing and deliberation violation of the same, I believe that this court violates long-standing principles of law when it engages in any “interpretation” of an employer’s rule or policy.5
Judge PELLEGRINI joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, added by section 3 of the Act of December 9, 2002, P.L. 1330, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e.1). Section 402(e.1) became effective immediately.

. 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for compensation if he is unemployed due to willful misconduct connected with his work.

. Employer did not seek clarification or correction of the decisions below, and I believe that we should limit our review to the determination that has been challenged on appeal.

. The majority contends that its expansive reading of Employer’s policy is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the drug test. Contrary to the majority's reasoning, however, there is no need to make any inferences from the plain language of Employer’s policy because benefits can be denied under section 402(e.l) on the basis of positive test results.

. Of course, I do believe that an employer has the right to expect that its employees will not be working under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Here, however, Employer's witnesses acknowledged that there was ncr evidence that Claimant was under the influence of drugs while on duty. Thus, at best, the results of the drug test reflect that Claimant ingested or was exposed to drugs while off duly. A claimant may be denied benefits based on off-duty conduct pursuant to section 3 of the Law, 43 P.S. § 752, but only if the employer proves that: (1) the claimant has engaged in unacceptable conduct; and (2) the conduct in question negatively affects the claimant's ability to properly perform his job. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 38, 506 A.2d 974 (1986). In this case there was no evidence that any conduct that could be inferred from the results of the drug-screening test affected Claimant’s ability to perform his job.