LOWER APPEALS DECISION
|DECISION DATE: August 2, 1985
||APPEAL NO.: 07419
|EMPLOYER: Whitcraft Transmissions
||L. O. NO.: 40
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected
with his work within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Law.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER
APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY BE 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 August 19, 1985.
|For the Claimant:
| For the Employer:
Present Craig Whitcraft, President
Roger Litchfield, Transmission Rebuilder
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
Whitcraft Transmissions alleged that the claimant had been
observed on June 5, 1985, walking around a co-worker's
car at lunch time. At approximately, 3 p.m., it was discovered
that three tires from an employee's car had been slashed.
On June 6, 1985, the claimant had been questioned about
the three tires being slashed and was asked to pay for
the cost to purchase new tires. The employer alleged that
the claimant was not discharged from employment, but left
the job after being requested to pay for the tires.
The claimant alleged that on June 5, 1985, at approximately
12:45 p.m., that another co-worker had slashed the tires
of an employee's car. The claimant alleged that three
tires had been slashed. The claimant alleged that he did
not inform his employer that a co-worker had slashed three
tires of an employee's car from Whitcraft Transmission.
The claimant alleged that on June 6, 1985, that he was
not going to pay for tires that had been slashed by another
individual. The claimant alleged that he did not conspire
with a co-worker to slash tires of an employee from Whitecraft
Transmissions. The claimant alleged that he was discharged
from employment at Whitcraft Transmissions after he was
requested to pay for three tires that had been slashed.
The claimant had no intent to resign his employment at
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant had been employed by Whitcraft Transmissions
from September, 1982 to June 6, 1985. The claimant had
been employed as a transmission installer.
The claimant was separated from employment at Whitcraft Transmissions
because on June 5, 1985, a co-worker had slashed three
tires of an employee's car, which the claimant had been
aware of. The claimant failed to notify Whitecraft Transmissions
that a co-worker had slashed tires of an employee's car
from Whitecraft Transmissions. The claimant had been questioned
by the employer about the incident on June 5, 1985 because
the claimant had been observed walking around the car
that had three of its tires slashed during lunch time.
The claimant was requested to pay for the three tires;
the claimant was unwilling to pay for the tires that had
been slashed because he did not slash the tires.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 of duty,
or a course of wrongful conduct committed by an employee
within the scope of his employment relationship, or on
the employer's premises.
The claimant's conduct by failing to inform the employer that
a co-worker, on June 5, 1985, had slashed three tires
of another employee's car from Whitcraft Transmissions
during lunch time, evidences a dereliction of duty which
constitutes misconduct connected with the work within
the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Law. Therefore, the
determination of the Claims Examiner under Section 6(c)
of the Law must be reversed.
The claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with
the work within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Maryland
Unemployment Insurance Law. Benefits are denied for the
week beginning June 2, 1985 and the nine weeks immediately following.
The determination of the Claims Examiner is reversed.
This denial of unemployment insurance benefits for a specified
number of weeks will also result in ineligibility for
Extended Benefits and Federal Supplemental Compensation
(FSC), unless the claimant has been employed after the date of the disqualification.
Marvin J. Pazornick Hearings Examiner
Date of hearing: July 24, 1985
Copies mailed on August 2, 1985 to:
Unemployment Insurance - Westminster