DLLR's Unemployment Insurance Appeals

 

Decision Number 1468-BR-93 - Discharge - Sections 8-1002, 8-1002.1, 8-1003 -Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

DECISION NO: 1468-BR-93
DATE: Sept. 7, 1993
 
CLAIMANT: John Vassallo APPEAL NO.: 9311071
 
EMPLOYER: Loyola F. S.B. L.O. NO: 23
 
APPELLANT: Claimant

Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct, connected with the work within the meaning of §8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY OR ONE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS IN A COUNTY IN MARYLAND. THE COURT RULES ABOUT HOW TO APPEAL CAN BE FOUND IN MANY PUBLIC LIBRARIES, IN THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, MARYLAND RULES, VOLUME 2, B ROLES.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES OCTOBER 7, 1993.

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant: For the Employer:

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The Board adopts the findings of fact of the Hearing Examiner and in addition finds that the claimant resigned from Maryland National Bank with the understanding that he could tell potential future employers that he resigned for personal reasons; his supervisor also told him that he would be a reference for him. There were no charges placed against the claimant. In fact, the claimant denies any wrongdoing and the Hearing Examiner found as a fact that the allegations of sexual harassment were false.

The reasons the claimant gave Loyola FSB for leaving his former job were not false. They did not however, give the complete story surrounding the claimant's resignation. However, given the particular circumstances of this case l, the Board concludes that the claimant was not under any obligation to Loyola to reveal unsubstantiated false allegations made against him.

Therefore, the Board concludes that the claimant was discharged for reasons that do not amount to misconduct, connected with his work, within the meaning of LE, §8-1003.

DECISION

The claimant was discharged, but not for misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning of §8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article. No disqualification is imposed based upon his separation from employment with Loyola FSB.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.

Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Donna P. Watts, Associate Member

Hw:w
kbm
COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - COLUMBIA

Loyola F.S.B. - Employee Relations
Automatic Data Processing

1 The Board further notes that there was no problem with the claimant's conduct at Loyola. The sole reason for his discharge was due to his failure to reveal the allegations made against him at Maryland National.

 

 

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