LOWER APPEALS DECISION
|DECISION DATE: May 24, 1990
|CLAIMANT: Katherine O. Koski
||APPEAL NO.: 9005673
|EMPLOYER: Apex Associates, Inc.
||L. O. NO.: 3
Issue: Whether the claimant was able, available and actively
seeking work, within the meaning of Section 4(c) of the Law.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A REVIEW
AND SUCH PETITION FOR REVIEW MAY BE FILED IN ANY OFFICE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT,
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 June 8, 1990.
|For the Claimant:
Katherine O. Koski - Claimant
| For the Employer:
Keith Mayo, President/General Manager
Frank Bradley, Sales Manager
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Claims Examiner determined the claimant to be unavailable
for full-time employment without restriction based upon
a statement offered to the Claims Examiner at the time
of the original interview.
The facts offered to the Claims Examiner are materially the
same as presented at the appeals hearing which were "I
would accept full-time employment at this time but only
until the summer. My husband and I are planning to build
chicken houses and we have gotten prices but nothing started
as far as building. We do have building permits and have
had the land tested but I am looking for work each week
at this time. I am going to quit as soon as the chicken
houses are ready. I will be the person responsible for
caring for the chicken houses and I am only available
for work until the chicken houses are ready."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Article 95A, Section 4(c) provides that a claimant for unemployment
insurance benefits must be (1) able and available for
work and (2) actively seeking work without restrictions
upon his/her availability for work. In Robinson v. Employment
Security Board (202 Md. 515). The Court of Appeals upheld
the principle that a claimant may not impose restrictions
upon his/her willingness to work and still be "available"
as the Statute requires.
in this case demonstrates that the claimant is seeking
merely a temporary employment until such time as she is
established in a family business. Such a circumstance
is not equivalent to being available with restriction as contemplated
by the Statute of Section 4(c). In this case there is
a restriction upon the claimant's availability for work
and that restriction is that the availability is temporary and extends to a limited
and definable time. Under these circumstances, the determination
of the Claims Examiner is in accordance with the requirements
of Section 4(c) and may not be disturbed.
It is held that the claimant is not meeting the availability
requirements of Section 4(c) of the Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law and is, therefore, ineligible for the receipt
of unemployment insurance benefits for that reason.
The determination of the Claims Examiner is affirmed.
The claimant is held to be ineligible for benefits from the
week beginning April 8, 1990 and until such time that
she is in full compliance with the requirements of the
Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
Louis Wm. Steinwedel
Deputy Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: May 11, 1990
bch/Specialist ID: 10167
Cassette No: 3977
Copies mailed on May 24, 1990 to:
Unemployment Insurance - Cambridge (MABS)