| LOWER APPEALS DECISION
DECISION
| DECISION DATE: July 13, 1993 |
|
| |
|
| CLAIMANT: John M. Vassallo |
APPEAL NO.: 9311071 |
| |
|
| EMPLOYER: Loyola FSB |
L. O. NO.: 23 |
| |
|
|
APPELLANT: Claimant |
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected
with the work within the meaning of the Code of Maryland,
Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1003.
- 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 BOARD OF APPEALS, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW
STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR
BY MAIL.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW EXPIRES ON July
28, 1993.
NOTE: APPEALS FILED BY MAIL INCLUDING SELF-METERED MAIL ARE
CONSIDERED FILED ON THE DATE OF THE U.S.POSTAL SERVICE POSTMARK.
APPEARANCES
For the Claimant:
Present |
For the Employer:
Rebecca M. Joyner, Vice President
Jackie Parks, Regional Vice President
Patricia Hebda, ADP
|
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant was employed on March 15, 1993 through May 3,
1993 as a branch manager at the rate of pay of $35,000
per year. The claimant, on his application dated December
1, 1992, responded to a question as to his reason for
leaving employment with Maryland National Bank," Personal/looking
for a change/bank's performance."
The claimant was interviewed in December of 1992 at which
time he stated that the personal reasons for leaving Maryland
National Bank were because of the changes in the bank,
he decided to move on. The claimant was hired and began
work, at which time a background investigation was initiated.
The employer eventually found out that Maryland National
Bank had had a problem with the claimant's conduct.
The claimant was falsely accused by a co-employee, while at
Maryland National Bank, of sexual harassment. In October
of 1992, a Maryland National Bank supervisor advised the
claimant that the bank could not keep him and it would
be best if he would resign as a result of the claim of
sexual harassment. The claimant did resign from Maryland
National Bank. The claimant did not tell Loyola of all
the facts surrounding his resignation because he was embarrassed.
The new employer, Loyola Federal Savings Bank, once becoming
aware of these further facts surrounding the claimant's
separation from Maryland National Bank, discharged the
claimant on May 3, 1993 because he had falsified his application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8,
Section 1002(a) (l)(i),(ii) provides for a disqualification
from benefits where an employee is discharged for actions
which constitute (1) a deliberate and willful disregard
of standards which the employer has a right to expect
or (2) a series of violations of employment rules which
demonstrate a regular and wanton disregard of the employee's
obligations to the employer. The preponderance of the
credible evidence in the instant case will support a conclusion
that the claimant s actions do not rise to the level of
gross misconduct within the meaning of the Statute.
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 an the employer's premises within
the meaning of the Maryland Code, Labor and Employment
Article, Title 8, Section 1003. (See Rogers v. Radio Shack,
271 Md. 126, 314 A.2d 113).
A falsification of an employment application is misconduct.
The degree of misconduct, simple or gross, depends on
the materiality of the information falsified. Where information
does not have a bearing on the claimant's ability to perform
work, but is vital to the employer's operating policies,
a finding of simple misconduct and not gross misconduct
is supported. The claimant had falsified his employment
application in regards to his true reasons for leaving
Maryland National Bank. The falsification of the application
was in regards to a false claim of sexual harassment made
against the claimant while in his prior employment. The
information withheld would not nave a bearing on the claimant's
ability to perform his work, and therefore, would amount
to simple misconduct and not gross misconduct. Therefore,
it is determined that the claimant's falsification of
his employment application with his new employer, Loyola
Federal Savings Bank, constitutes simple misconduct within
the meaning of the Maryland Code, Labor and Employment
Article, Title 8, Section 1003.
DECISION
The determination of the Claims Examiner is affirmed.
It is held that the claimant was discharged for misconduct,
connected with the work, within the meaning of the Maryland
Unemployment Insurance Law, Title 8, Section 1003 of the
Law. Benefits are denied for the week beginning May 2,
1993, and for the nine weeks immediately following.
Jon Will, Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: 6/17/93
SPECIALIST ID: 23993
ab\CASSETTE IN FILE
SEQ: 01
Copies mailed on 7/13/93 to:
Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Columbia (MABS)
Automatic Data Processing
ATTN: Patricia Hebda
|
