Decision Number 1582-BR-92 - Voluntary Quit - Section 8-1001 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant s unemployment was due to leaving work voluntarily, without good cause, within the meaning of Section 8-1001 of the Labor and Employment Article.

- 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 October 17, 1992.

APPEARANCES

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

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

The evidence taken in this case was not as specific as it could have been, and much of the testimony focused on the relatively minor issues of the claimant wearing perfume and being asked not to wear perfume. More important were the issues of the amount of money the claimant was making, the meaning of the quota that was assigned to the claimant and the employer's vague communications to her regarding her possible discharge. The claimant has not established that she was promised a specific amount or money or business upon her transfer to the Glen Burnie office, nor that any specific provision of her employment agreement was violated. She has established, however, that she accepted a transfer in lieu of a layoff, that her commissions were very low and that she was unable to meet her employer's quota for job orders, despite her best efforts.

The claimant has eight years of experience as an employment counselor. In June of 1991, she went to work for Taylor and Associates in Baltimore City. The majority of the stock in Taylor and Associates is owned by the employer in this case. Taylor and Associates closed its office, apparently due to business conditions.

The claimant, instead of being laid off, accepted a transfer to the Glen Burnie office of this employer, Sovero Associates, Inc. She commuted 27 miles each way. Her payment was by commission only, but with a minimum pay $4.35 an hour. The claimant earned few commissions. In addition, she was unable to make her quota of ten job orders per month, despite her best efforts. Two weeks before she left, the employer met with her and hinted that she would be laid off if she failed to meet the quota. The claimant received repeated reminders that she was not meeting the quota. These reminders were not harassing in nature, but they had the effect of putting pressure on her, as they were intended to. Upon receipt of an additional complaint from her supervisor about her perfume, the claimant quit.

The claimant does not have "good cause" for leaving employment, but she does have "valid circumstances." Having been laid off from one office, the claimant commuted 27 miles to another office and found that she was unable to earn substantial commissions there. She was given a quota of ten job orders. (The record is not clear how the job orders were related to commissions.) She was unable to fulfill that quota, despite her best efforts, and the employer's reminders of this had reached the point where he was hinting that she was about to be let go. The claimant left because the employer was making it clear that she was unable to meet the employer's expectations, despite the fact that she was putting forth her best effort. These reasons constitute a substantial cause for leaving the job, thus qualifying as "valid circumstances" under the law. They do not amount to good cause, as they do not amount to employer harassment, nor employer violation of a substantial condition of the employment agreement.

DECISION

The claimant left work voluntarily, without good cause, but for valid circumstances, within the meaning of Section 8-1001 of the Labor and Employment Article. She is disqualified from receiving benefits from the week beginning March 15, 1992 and the six weeks immediately following.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is modified.

Thomas W. Keech, Chairman
Donna P. Watts, Associate Member

K:D
kmb
COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - EASTPOINT

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant left work voluntarily, without good cause, within the meaning of MD Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1001.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW -

ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A REVIEW AND SUCH PETITION FUR REVIEW MAY BE FILED IN ANY OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, OR WITH THE BOARD OF APPEALS, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY MAIL.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW EXPIRES ON June 25, 1992.

NOTE: APPEALS FILED BY MAIL INCLUDING SELF-METERED MAIL ARE CONSIDERED FILED ON THE DATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE POSTMARK.

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant worked for this employer from November 9, 1991 through March 16, 1992. She was a commission employee and worked for the employer as an employment consultant. The claimant had worked for a prior associated business prior to November 29, 1991.

The claimant voluntarily quit her employment on or about March 16, 1991 because she was not earning the amount of money she had hoped and was displeased with the office environment in the new facility.

The credible evidence indicates that the claimant was working in a Glen Burnie office which was approximately 27 miles one-way to travel for the claimant. The claimant had earned a larger salary and had difficulty making money during these economic times. The claimant is an employment consultant and only gets paid on the placements that she makes. The claimant made a couple placements in November and December, 1991. However, in early 1992, the claimant's luck ran out and she had difficulty placing people. The claimant did not earn much money. She was earning approximately $5.00 per hour. In addition, the claimant was displeased with the office environment. The claimant was told on more than one occasion that she should tone down her perfume.

The employer had to consolidate offices due to the economy. This meant that there four people in small offices of 10'x12'. The employer had a complaint from one of the co-workers that the claimant's perfume was irritating. The claimant also disliked some of the meetings that she had with the employer. The employer was trying to develop alternative ways for the claimant to place clients. The claimant did not wish to "try other alternatives to change her luck.

The claimant voluntarily quit her employment because of the stress of getting to the office, the office environment and her dissatisfaction with the job.

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.

In the instant case, the claimant voluntarily quit her job because she was not making the money she was accustomed to making and she did not like her work environment. The claimant was dissatisfied with the changes that had occurred after this job change. The claimant decided that it was not worth her interest to continue working for an employer traveling 27 miles one-way in an unsatisfactory environment. The claimant voluntarily quit her employment, without good cause attributable to the employer and without valid circumstances.

DECISION

The claimant voluntarily quit her employment, without good cause, within the meaning of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1001 of the Law. Benefits are denied for the week beginning March 15, 1992 and until the claimant becomes reemployed and earns at least ten times her weekly benefit amount ($1600) and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of her own.

The determination of the Claims Specialist is affirmed.

Kevin M. O'Neill Hearing Examiner

Date of Hearing: June 3, 1992
ras\Specialist ID: 40309
Cassette in File
Copies mailed on June 10, 1992 to:

Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Eastpoint (MABS)