| LOWER APPEALS DECISION
DECISION
| DECISION DATE: 6/22/92 |
|
| |
|
| CLAIMANT: Kenneth N. Gerberg |
APPEAL NO.: 9211525 |
| |
|
| EMPLOYER: Network Recruiters, Inc. |
L. O. NO.: 9 |
| |
|
|
APPELLANT: Employer |
Issue: Whether the claimant failed, without good cause, to
apply for or to accept available, suitable work within
the meaning of MD Code, Labor and Employment Article,
Title 8, Section 1005. Whether the appeal was timely
within the meaning of Section 806 of the Law.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER
APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL 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 FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES ON July 7, 1992
NOTICE: APPEALS FILED BY MAIL, INCLUDING SELF-METERED
MAIL, ARE CONSIDERED FILED ON THE DATE OF THE US. POSTAL
SERVICE POSTMARK
APPEARANCES
For the Claimant:
Claimant |
For the Employer:
Victoria Lijewski
|
FINDINGS OF FACT
The form DET/UIA 941 in the file indicates that the appeal
filed by the Network Recruiters, Inc. was not timely.
According to the 941, the appeal was to have been filed
on May 19, 1992, but was not filed until May 29, 1992.
In the file, there is a letter from the Network Recruiters
or Snelling Temporary Services dated May 15, 1992 and
seeking an appeal of the lower decision. That was received
on May 19, 1992 or May 18, 1992 by the Department of
Economic and Employment Development, Towson, Maryland.
Therefore, the appeal is considered as timely filed
as the correct filing date is May 19, 1992.
The claimant had been working off and on since October of
1990 for the Network Recruiters, Inc. also known as
Snelling Temporary Agencies. During that period of time,
his normal rate of pay has been anywhere from $8 to
$9 an hour and he accepted most assignments no matter
what the length of the assignment was. In 1992, the
claimant informed this employer that he would only accept
work from him if it was $9.50 an hour and was a long-term
assignment. The employer considered a long-term assignment
as three or more months, while the claimant considered
a long-term assignment of one week or longer. Additionally,
in 1992, the claimant contacted several other temporary
agencies to also secure employment with them and received
offers and worked from these other temporary agencies.
On April 13, 1992, the claimant refused an offer of
suitable work from the Snelling Temporary Agencies at
$8.50 for at least three or more days. Instead, he accepted
another agency's employment; however, that employment
has now ended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 8-1005 of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law discusses
failure to apply for or accept suitable work. There
are several requirements involved in the acceptance
of work and what is suitable. In the current case, the
claimant was offered work that was within his range
of pay or had recently been within his range of pay,
it was in his normal line of work, and it was suitable
for him. The claimant's refusal of this work was basically
a refusal of suitable work. Generally speaking, when
a claimant works with a temporary agency, the agency
will normally inform the unemployment office of the
refusal to accept work and a penalty in generally Imposed.
Additionally, if the claimant is actively interviewing
for permanent work and has reasonable prospects of an
offer, the claimant then has good cause to refuse the
temporary assignment. As stated above, in this case,
the claimant was strictly doing temporary work at this
time and was not seeking permanent employment unless
he got it through one of his temporary assignments.
It is concluded from the evidence presented at the appeal
hearing that the claimant failed to apply for/accept
suitable work when offered to him within the meaning
of the MD Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title
8, Section 1005(a)(b)(c).
As provided by Section 1005, among the factors to be considered
in determining whether work is suitable for an individual
are (1) the degree of risk involved to his health, safety
and morals (2) his physical fitness and prior training,
(3) his experience and prior earnings, (4) his length
of unemployment and prospects for securing local work
in his customary occupation, and (5) the distance of
the available work from his residence.
In Barley v. Md. Dept. of Emp. Sec. (242 Md. 102), the
Court of Appeals held that the determination of suitable
work is a matter within the expertise of the administrative
agency, "and it would be a rare case indeed which would
justify a court in disturbing that administrative determination."
DECISION
It is held that the employer, Network Recruiters, Inc.,
did file a timely appeal in this matter and, therefore,
there appeal is considered timely.
It is held that the claimant failed, without good cause,
to accept available, suitable work within the meaning
of the MD Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title
8, Section 1005. He is disqualified from receiving benefits
from the week beginning April 12, 1992 until he becomes
re-employed, earns at least ten times his weekly benefit
amount ($1,590) and thereafter becomes unemployed through
no fault of his own.
The determination of the Claims Examiner is reversed.
Thomas J. Lee, Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: 6/18/92
lc/Specialist ID: 09663
Copies Mailed on 6/22/92 to:
Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Towson (MABS)
|
