Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in the case of Harold R. Wagner v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Appeal No. 3536.
David S. Sobotka, for petitioner.
Michael J. McCaney, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
Harold R. Wagner (Petitioner) has filed this Petition for Review from a State Civil Service Commission
(Commission) order which sustained the action of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Appointing Authority) suspending Petitioner for thirty days from his position as Highway Equipment Manager III. We affirm the Commission.
Petitioner served as the County Equipment Manager for Berks County in the Appointing Authority's District 5-1. One of the duties of Petitioner's position was the maintenance and preparation of the Appointing Authority's Form 373-A, Training Attendance Report, which is used to document employee training. As a result of allegations made by the local employee's union that the training documents were being falsified, the Appointing Authority's District Engineer requested an investigation of training in Berks County by the Appointing Authority's Operations Review Group. The Appointing Authority suspended Petitioner, by letter dated July 27, 1981, pending completion of its investigation. On August 31, 1981, the Appointing Authority converted that suspension pending investigation to a suspension for thirty days for falsification of training and certification records, listing in the suspension notification letter seven instances of falsification of training reports as they concerned the training of employees to operate heavy equipment.*fn1
Petitioner took an appeal from this suspension to the Commission. After a hearing, the Commission found that three of the listed instances of falsification were substantiated*fn2 and that those three instances supported the Appointing Authority's suspension of Petitioner. The Commission also determined that
Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of discrimination.*fn3
Petitioner's brief presents two issues for our review. Petitioner first contends that there was not substantial evidence to support the Commission's determination that there was just cause for suspension. Petitioner's second issue concerns whether the ...