| BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
DECISION NO: 1051-BR-82
DATE: July 23, 1982 |
|
| |
|
| CLAIMANT: John J. Kramp, Jr. |
APPEAL NO.: 05875 |
| |
|
| EMPLOYER: Baltimore
Gas & Electric Co. |
L.O. NO: 1 |
| |
|
| |
APPELLANT: Employer |
Issue: Whether the Claimant failed, without good cause, to accept
suitable work within the meaning of Section 6(d) 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 August
22, 1982.
APPEARANCES
| For the Claimant: |
For the Employer:
|
REVIEW ON THE RECORD
Upon a review
of the entire record, the Board of Appeals affirms the
decision of the Appeals Referee in regard to Section 6(d)
of the Law, although the Board does not agree with the
seasoning of the Appeals Referee with regard to Section 6(d).
In addition,
the Board of Appeals concludes that the appropriate penalty
in the circumstances of this case is a penalty imposed
under Section 6(a) of the Law because the Claimant voluntarily
quit his employment, without good cause.
The Board
of Appeals finds as facts that the Claimant worked from
September of 1976 until December 22, 1981 for the Baltimore
Gas & Electric Company. He was employed as a parts
delivery driver. At the time of his termination, he was
making $328.70 per week.
The Claimant
was injured on the job in October of 1980. The Claimant
was entitled to 130 full days of sick pay. Between January
21, 1981 and December 22, 1981, the Claimant worked only
41 days and was paid the rest in sick pay.
In November
of 1981, approximately 30 days before the expiration of
his sick pay benefits, the Claimant was offered a clerical
job paying the exact same salary as his job as a parts
delivery driver. The Claimant at the time was unable to
resume his occupation as parts delivery driver, but he
was able to fulfill the duties of a clerical person. The
job was from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at the G & E Building downtown. The Claimant refused
this transfer, contending that he was losing money by
accepting the same salary because there was not overtime
available in the clerical position.
In fact,
the Claimant had received no overtime pay during the nine
months he was on sick leave, he had never been specifically
promised overtime as a parts delivery driver and he would
have originally taken his old job even without overtime.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board concludes that the Claimant cannot be disqualified
under Section 6(d) of the Law for refusing available,
suitable work. The Board has consistently held that this
penalty is applicable only while a person is in claim
status, filing claims. This is not the case here. The
Claimant was offered a transfer to the clerical position
while he was still employed at the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company.
The facts of this case, however, show that the Claimant voluntarily
quit his job, without good cause, within the meaning of
Section 6(a) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
The Claimant, who was incapacitated from performing his
former job, refused to transfer to a job which he was
capable of performing and which paid the exact same pay.
The Board does not consider the differences concerning
overtime to be significant, especially in the light of
the facts developed in this case.
Since the Claimant was totally incapacitated from performing
his former duties, his refusal of the transfer to duties
which he was capable of performing was a voluntary quit.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Employer's offer
of a transfer to a new position was the only reasonable
course which the parties could take. The Claimant, by
refusing to accept the only reasonable alternative which
would allow him to keep his job, voluntarily quit his
job, without good cause, within the meaning of Section
6(a) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law. The Board
is unable to find any serious, valid circumstances which
might justify the imposition of less than the maximum
penalty in this case.
DECISION
The Claimant did not refuse available, suitable works within
the meaning of Section 6(d) of the Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law. No disqualification is imposed under Section
6(d) of the Law for the week beginning November 21, 1981.
With regard to this section of the Law, the decision of
the Appeals Referee is affirmed.
The Claimant voluntarily quit his job, without good cause,
within the meaning of Section 6(a) of the Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law. He is disqualified from receiving benefits
for the week beginning November 20, 1-981 and until he
becomes re-employed, earns ten times his weekly benefit
amount ($1,050) and thereafter becomes unemployed through
no fault of his own.
The decision of the Appeals Referee with regard to Section
6(a) of the. Law is reversed.
Thomas W. Keech, Chairman
Maurice E. Dill, Associate Member
K:D
zvs
COPIES MAILED TO:
CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
Steve Kirsch, Esquire
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - BALTIMORE
|
