BOARD OF APPEALS
|DECISION NO: 1599-BH-82
DATE: November 10, 1982
|CLAIMANT: James Davis Harris
|| APPEAL NO.: 02235
|EMPLOYER: Rapid Rooter
||L.O. NO: 40
Issue: Whether the Claimant's unemployment was due to leaving
work voluntarily, without good cause, within the meaning
of Section 6(a) of the Law.
- 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE
CITY, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN
WHICH YOU RESIDE.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT December
|For the Claimant:
|For the Employer:
James Davis Harris - Present
Orland Weese Treasurer
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 Employment Security Administration's
documents in the appeal file.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Claimant was employed by Rapid Rooter as a sewer drain cleaner
from March 1978 until approximately October 17, 1981.
The Claimant quit his job because he was required to participate
in activities that he believed to be fraudulent, including
charging customers for unnecessary work. The Claimant
reported these activities to the Consumer Protection Division
of the Maryland Attorney General's office for investigation.
Although the Claimant did, on at least one occasion, violate a
company rule, by taking money without permission in order
to pay himself, he was not fired.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This case came before the Board on an appeal by the Employer. After
carefully considering the conflicting testimony and evidence
of the parties, the Board concludes that the Claimant
quit, but with good cause, due to the actions of the Employer
and the conditions of employment. Clearly, not wanting
to participate in fraudulent activities constitutes good
cause. The question here is not whether the Claimant committed
misconduct. Therefore, whether he violated a company rule
is not pertinent to this case.
The Claimant's unemployment was caused by separating from
employment voluntarily, but with good cause within the
meaning of Section 6(a) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
The decision of the Appeals Referee is affirmed.
Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Maurice E. Dill, Associate Member
DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 1982
COPIES MAILED TO:
University of Maryland School of Law
Susan Leviton, Esquire
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - EASTPOINT