State offices and all DLLR physical locations will be closed to the public December 24 & December 25, 2014. However, Unemployment Insurance telephone and Web operations WILL be available on Wednesday, December 24.

DLLR's Unemployment Insurance Appeals

 

Decision Number 1485-BH-92 - Voluntary Quit - Section 8-1001 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

DECISION NO: 1485-BH-92
DATE: August 27, 1992
 
CLAIMANT: William S. Foote APPEAL NO.: 9200023
 
EMPLOYER: T LB Associates, Inc. L.O. NO: 1
 
APPELLANT: Employer

Issue: Whether the claimant left 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 MAY BE 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 September 26, 1992.

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant:
William Foote - Claimant
For the Employer:
Thomas Brown - President
Palmer Stephenn Vice President

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

The Board of Appeals has considered all of the evidence presented, including the testimony offered at the hearings. The Board has also considered all of the documentary evidence introduced in this case, as well as the Department of Economic and Employment Development's documents in the appeal file.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant was employed by this employer as a driller helper in April of 1991. He earned $20.45 per hour. His last actual day of work was July 3, 1991.

When the claimant was first employed, he told the employer that he had a driver's license. This was important, since most of the employer's jobs required two employees, each of whom needed to have a driver's license in order to operate the employer's drilling equipment and truck. On some of the employer's operations, however, three persons were sent. In this case, it was acceptable for one of these people not to have a driver's license.

Although the claimant told the employer that he had a driver's license, it was also true that he had changed his address without notifying the DMV while some driving charges were pending against him. As a result, he lost his driver's license while he was employed.

The employer, who had plenty of work for a worker of the claimant's calibre who had a driver's license, could not offer the claimant steady full-time work after he lost his license. The claimant was offered work on various days, and he worked some of these days after he lost his license. Eventually, however, he left the employment without notifying the employer and obtained a job elsewhere. Eventually, he became unemployed again and applied for benefits.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board concludes that the claimant voluntarily quit his employment. The employment which he was originally offered, which required a driver's license, was still available on a full-time basis at the time the claimant left the employment. It is true that considerably less work was available for the claimant after he lost his license. This fact, however, was not the employer's fault. In the case of Lee v. Kimos Althaphous, Inc. (781-BH-86), the Board ruled that, where a claimant's hours were being cut back solely because the claimant had stolen merchandise from the employer and could not longer be trusted on the premises alone, the claimant's resulting resignation was for neither a good cause or a valid circumstance.

Although the claimant committed no crime against the employer in this case, the parallel with the Lee case is that the claimant's hours were reduced solely because of the claimant's own conduct in losing his license. Although there was considerably less work available, this was the fault of the claimant. Under these conditions, the claimant's reason for leaving is not considered to be either a good cause or valid circumstances.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner must be reversed, and the maximum penalty must be applied.

DECISION

The unemployment of the claimant was due to leaving work voluntarily, without good cause or valid circumstances, within the meaning of Section 8-1001 of the Labor and Employment Article. He is disqualified from receiving benefits from the week beginning June 30, 1991 and until the claimant becomes reemployed, earns at least ten times his weekly benefit amount ($2,230.00) and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of his own.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.

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

K:D
kmb
DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 1992
COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - BALTIMORE

 

 

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

DECISION DATE: 1/29/92  
 
CLAIMANT: William S. Foote APPEAL NO.: 9200023
 
EMPLOYER: T L B Associates, Inc. L. O. NO.: 1
 
APPELLANT: Claimant

Issue: Whether the claimant left work voluntarily, without god cause, within the meaning of MD Code, Title 8, Section 1001.

- 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 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 FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON 2/13/92.

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant:
Claimant-Present
For the Employer:
Not Represented

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant went to work for T L B Associates, Inc., as a Driller Helper in April 1991. His last day of work on this job was July 3, 1991, at which time he was earning $20.45 per hour.

The claimant supposedly voluntarily quit his job with T L B, because he did not have a valid drivers license, as his had been suspended. Additionally, a drivers license is required for the job. The claimant is well aware of the fact that "he had no drivers license at this time and has had none for the past several months. As stated, the employer has said the license is needed to work for them. However, the claimant did do a great deal of work for his employer since he started there and the license was not needed as his employer would get another employee to drive. It was only when the employer did not have work available that it raised the issue of needing the drivers license. When work was plentiful the claimant was allowed to work whether or not he had a license and when it was not, he was not allowed to work because he did not have his license. Finally, in late July 1991, the claimant went to look for other work and this was construed by his employer to be a voluntary quit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In the present case, the claimant was laid off due to a lack of work; however, the excuse used was that he did not have a drivers license.

DECISION

Within the meaning of the Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1001. No disqualification is imposed based upon his separation from this employment with - TLB Associates, Inc. The claimant may contact the local office concerning the other eligibility requirements of the Law.

The determination of the Claims Examiner is reversed.

Thomas J. Lee Hearing Examiner

Date of hearing: 1/20/92
rc/Specialist ID: 01067
Copies mailed on 1/29/92 to:

Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Baltimore - MABS