Decision Number 1042-BR-89 - Timely and Valid Appeal - Sections 8-806, 8-510 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct or misconduct, connected with her work, within the meaning of Section 6(b) or 6(c) of the law; whether the claimant filed a timely appeal or had good cause for an appeal filed late, within the meaning of Section 7(c)(3) of the law.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. THE APPEAL MAYBE TAKEN IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, IF YOU RESIDE IN BALTIMORE CITY, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN WHICH YOU RESIDE.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON December 29, 1989.

APPEARANCES

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner and concludes that the claimant did not have good cause for filing a late appeal to the Appeals Division, within the meaning of Section 7(c)(3) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.

The claimant's excuse for filing her appeal eight days late is that she was waiting for her attorney to file it. This is not good cause. The Board has previously held that the failure of an authorized representative to file a timely appeal does not give a party good cause for a late appeal under Section 7(C) (3).- See, _ e.g., Hairston v. Indian Creek School , 796-BR-83; see also, Holder v. The BOC Group, Inc. (where claimant turned adverse determination over to his union. through its lawyer, and the union filed the appeal late, good cause was not established).

Since the Board finds no good cause for late appeal, the original determination of the Claims Examiner, that the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct, is reinstated.

DECISION

The claimant filed a late appeal, without good cause, within the meaning of Section 7(c)(3) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.

The claimant was discharged for gross misconduct, connected with her work, within the meaning of Section 6(b) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law. She is disqualified from receiving benefits from the week beginning July 2, 1989 and until she becomes re-employed, earns at least ten times her weekly benefit amount ($1,890), and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of her own.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.

Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Thomas W. Keech, Chairman

HW:K
kbm
COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER

Maxine Cade, Esq.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - COLLEGE PARK

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning of Section 6(b) of the Law. Whether the appealing party filed a timely appeal or had good cause for an appeal filed late, within the meaning of Section 7(c)(3) of the Law.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -

ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY SE FILED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OFFICE. OR WITH THE APPEALS DIVISION. ROOM 515. 1100 NORTH EUTAW STREET. BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY MAIL

THE PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON September 28, 1989.

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

The last day for the claimant to file an appeal was August 1, 1989. Her appeal was filed August 9, 1989. The claimant retained an attorney, who was supposed to have filed the appeal.

The attorney did not. The claimant, therefore, had to file the appeal herself.

The claimant was the head teller at Geico Credit Union. She was in a position of trust. She had access to the vault, was responsible for the cash box of other tellers, and for enforcement of policies.

She was discharged after she signed her husband's signature on a check drawn on an account with another bank, but was deposited in her account at Geico for credit.

The check was returned from her husband's bank because the signature was not his.

Upon further investigation, the employer discovered that her husband's signature had been signed on loan applications from Geico. The claimant admitted signing her husband's name. The signing of her husband's signature without the power of attorney violates the employer's policy.

The claimant has been married for nine years. She manages family finances and routinely signs her husband's name with his permission. She did not intend or attempt to defraud or mislead by signing his name.

Since she was in a position of trust, she was discharged after the employer lost confidence in her.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The claimant had good cause for filing late. She had relied on her attorney to file the appeal for her. The attorney did not do so. The claimant should not be penalized because of her attorney's derelictions.

The term "misconduct," as used in the Statute means a transgression of some established rule or policy of the employer, the commission of a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, or a course of wrongful conduct committed by an employee within the scope of his employment relationship, during hours of employment or on the employer's premises. (See Rogers v. Radio Shack 271 Md. 126, 314 A.2d 113).

The claimant did violate the employer's policy, but there was no deliberate and willful intent to defraud or mislead by signing her husband's name. Consequently, I find no gross misconduct.

DECISION

The claimant had good cause to file a late appeal. The claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Law.

Benefits are denied for the week beginning July 2, 1989, and the five weeks immediately following.

Van D. Caldwell, Hearing Examiner

Date of Hearing: 9-1-89
cr/Specialist ID: 07196
Cassette No: 7712
Copies mailed on 9-13-89 to:

Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - College Park (MABS)