Decision Number 1554-BR-93 - Voluntary Quit - Section 8-1001 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant left work voluntarily, without good cause, within the meaning of §8-1001 of the Labor and Employment Article.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY OR ONE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS IN A COUNTY IN MARYLAND. THE COURT RULES ABOUT HOW TO APPEAL CAN BE FOUND IN MANY PUBLIC LIBRARIES, IN THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, MARYLAND RULES, VOLUME 2, B RULES.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES October 20, 1993.

APPEARANCES

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner.

The claimant was hired for four days of work or less, as the work became available. After December 9, 1992, he was assigned one day of work a week. Two weeks prior to December 19th, the claimant requested that particular day off. He was accidentally scheduled to work that day but, upon his reminding the employer that he had been granted that particular day, he was permitted the day off. No other day was scheduled for him that week. The claimant also did not work on December 31, 1992 because he had requested the day off and assumed that his request had been granted. The claimant was not put on the schedule for the next two weeks, though he checked the schedule again on January 4 and January 10, 1993.

The claimant, who had a full-time day job also, assumed that he was no longer wanted and ceased calling the job.

The reduction in hours to two scheduled days (one of those scheduled by mistake) in four consecutive weeks was a substantial detrimental change in the conditions of employment. This amounts to good cause. Many employers can offer employees only that work which is available from time to time. This does not change the fact that a reduction in hours almost to zero amounts to good cause. The fact that an employee was told that the hours would vary does not change this conclusion. See, Divers v. Light Street Deli (73-B-82). What happened to the claimant was virtually a layoff. The fact that the claimant knew this might happen does-not change the result of this case.

DECISION

The claimant voluntarily quit, but for good cause, within the meaning of §8-1001 of the Labor and Employment Article. No disqualification is imposed based upon the claimant's separation from employment with Phillips Harborplace, Inc.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.

Thomas W. Keech, Chairman
Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
K:HW
kbm
COPIES MAILED TO:
CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - BALTIMORE

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant's separation from this employment was for a disqualifying reason within the meaning of the MD. Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Sections 1001 (Voluntary Quit for good cause), 1002 -1002.1 (Gross/Aggravated Misconduct connected with the work), or 1003 (Misconduct connected with the work).

- NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW -

Any party may request a review either in person or by mail which may be filed in any local office of the Department of Economic and Employment Development, or with the Board of Appeals, Room 515, 1100 North Eutaw Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. Your appeal must be filed by August 6, 1993

Note: Appeals filed by mail are considered timely on the date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark.

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

Claimant began working for employer on November 24, 1992; his last day of work was December 13, 1992. He was employed part time as a cook and was compensated at the rate $5 per hour. Claimant voluntarily quit his job because he assumed that Employer no longer wanted to continue his employment.

Claimant requested, with advanced notice, to be scheduled off on December 19, and December 31, 1992. Shortly before December 19, 1992, Claimant learned that he had been scheduled for that date, but was able to resolve the problem so that he would be off on that date. Although Claimant had requested to be off on December 31, 1992, Employer required all employees to work on that date, since it was New Year's Eve.

An assistant manager contacted each employee on December 31, 1992 to remind them of the hours they were scheduled to work and to assure that they intended to report to work. When Claimant was contacted, he indicated that he was unaware that he had been scheduled for that date and that he intended to report to work shortly. Claimant did not report to work at all on December 31, 1992 and did not contact Employer after that date. His work schedule had been previously cut from approximately three days to approximately one day because of a decline in business, Claimant was made aware at the time of hire that the amount he would be scheduled to work would depend upon the level of business activity. Claimant did not return to work after his last day of work because he assumed that he was not being scheduled as many hours as he wanted because of his request for time off and because he really didn't care about his job with Employer, since he had another job with Hardees.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1001, provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits where his unemployment is due to leaving work voluntarily, without good cause arising from or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer. The preponderance of the credible evidence in the record will support a conclusion that the claimant voluntarily separated from employment, without good cause, within the meaning of Title 8, Section 1001.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

Claimant assumed that his hours were being cut as a reprisal for schedule request and for his failure to report to work on December 21, 1992. However, he did not contact Employer to confirm his assumption or to attempt to resolution of what he perceived to be a problem. Because he was not in any position where he had no reasonable alternative other than quitting his job, there is neither good cause nor a valid circumstance for Claimant's voluntary separation from employment.

DECISION

It is held that Claimant voluntarily left his employment, but not for good cause or due to a valid circumstance. He is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits beginning December 13, 1992 and until such time as he might become reemployed and earn wages for covered employment in an amount equal to or greater than fifteen times his weekly benefit and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of his own.

The determination of the Claims Examiner is modified.

K. C. Sippel, ESQ., Hearing Examiner

Date of hearing: July 9, 1993
cld/Specialist ID: 01038
Seq. No.: 004
Copies mailed on July 22, 1993 to:

DONNELL L. COLBERT
PHILLIPS HARBORPLACE INC
LOCAL OFFICE #01