LOWER APPEALS DECISION
DECISION
| DECISION DATE: 9-13-89 |
|
| |
|
| CLAIMANT: Loretta J. Noel |
APPEAL NO.: 8909745 |
| |
|
| EMPLOYER: Govt. Employees Ins. Co. |
L. O. NO.: 7 |
| |
|
|
APPELLANT: Claimant |
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct
connected with the work, within the meaning of Section
6(b) of the Law. Whether the appealing party filed a timely
appeal or had good cause for an appeal filed late, within
the meaning of Section 7(c)(3) of the Law.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER
APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY SE 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 September 28, 1989.
APPEARANCES
For the Claimant:
Claimant - Present |
For the Employer:
Mr. W. T. Judd, Manager
Geico Credit Union
Miss Louis Slinkman, Composite Administrator
|
FINDINGS OF FACT
The last day for the claimant to file an appeal was August
1, 1989. Her appeal was filed August 9, 1989. The claimant
retained an attorney, who was supposed to have filed the appeal.
The attorney did not. The claimant, therefore, had to file the appeal herself.
The claimant was the head teller at Geico Credit Union. She
was in a position of trust. She had access to the vault,
was responsible for the cash box of other tellers, and
for enforcement of policies.
She was discharged after she signed her husband's signature
on a check drawn on an account with another bank, but
was deposited in her account at Geico for credit.
The check was returned from her husband's bank because the signature was not his.
Upon further investigation, the employer discovered that her
husband's signature had been signed on loan applications
from Geico. The claimant admitted signing her husband's
name. The signing of her husband's signature without the
power of attorney violates the employer's policy.
The claimant has been married for nine years. She manages
family finances and routinely signs her husband's name
with his permission. She did not intend or attempt to
defraud or mislead by signing his name.
Since she was in a position of trust, she was discharged after
the employer lost confidence in her.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The claimant had good cause for filing late. She had relied
on her attorney to file the appeal for her. The attorney
did not do so. The claimant should not be penalized because
of her attorney's derelictions.
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 from duty,
or a course of wrongful conduct committed by an employee
within the scope of his employment relationship, during
hours of employment or on the employer's premises. (See
Rogers v. Radio Shack 271 Md. 126, 314 A.2d 113).
The claimant did violate the employer's policy, but there
was no deliberate and willful intent to defraud or mislead
by signing her husband's name. Consequently, I find no
gross misconduct.
DECISION
The claimant had good cause to file a late appeal. The claimant
was discharged for misconduct connected with the work,
within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Law.
Benefits are denied for the week beginning July 2, 1989, and the
five weeks immediately following.
Van D. Caldwell, Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: 9-1-89
cr/Specialist ID: 07196
Cassette No: 7712
Copies mailed on 9-13-89 to:
Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - College Park (MABS)
|
