LOWER APPEALS DECISION
|DECISION DATE: 09/18.91
|CLAIMANT: Charlie E. Farmer
||APPEAL NO.: 9113957
|EMPLOYER: Perdue Farms, Inc.
c/o Gates McDonald
|L. O. NO.: 12
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected
with the work, within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the Law.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TOT HIS 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 APPEALS DIVISION, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW
STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY MAIL.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING A FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT
ON October 3, 1991.
|For the Claimant:
Claimant - Present
|For the Employer:
Deborah Rogin, Human Resources Representative
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant filed an original claim for unemployment benefits
at Salisbury, effective July 14, 1991. The claimant had
been employed by Perdue Farms, Inc. from May 13, 1985
to January 25, 1991 as a live hanger at a pay rate of $7.05 per hour.
During the week ending following January 25, 1991, the claimant
was arrested and incarcerated. The claimant's foreman
learned of his incarceration early during the week following
his last day of work. The employer learned that the claimant
had been arrested for a hand gun violation, carrying a
concealed deadly weapon. The claimant was discharged February
5, 1991, because the employer concluded that the claimant
would be in jail for a considerable period of time, and
that he had an obligation to the employer with respect
to attendance which he could not possibly fulfill for
a long period of time due to his incarceration. On April
22, 1991, the claimant was tried and convicted for the
hand gun violation and sentenced to two years in prison.
On July 15, 1991, the claimant was released on supervised
probation for a period of two years ending July 15, 1993.
The claimant reapplied for employment with Perdue Farms,
Inc., but due to his poor employment history his application
is still pending.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The claimant was arrested and convicted of a crime for which
he was sentenced to two years in prison. That conduct
demonstrates "gross misconduct" as defined by the Statute.
Such gross misconduct is connected with the work for the
reason that the claimant has an obligation to his employer
to be dependable to be at work every day, and when it
became reasonably apparent that the claimant could not
fulfill that obligation to be at work every day due to
his incarceration, he was discharged. For these reasons,
I conclude that the claimant's conduct which led to his
arrest and conviction of a crime, carrying concealed deadly
weapon, constitutes gross misconduct connected with his
work, within the meaning of Section 6(b) of the Law requiring
the maximum disqualification as permitted by statute.
The claimant was discharged for gross misconduct connected
with his work, within the meaning of Section 6(b) of the
Law. Benefits are denied for the week beginning February
3, 1991 and until the claimant becomes re-employed and
earns at least ten times his weekly benefit amount, or
($1,460) and thereafter becomes unemployed through no
fault of his own.
Robin Brodinsky, Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: 9/13/91
ec/Specialist ID: 12627
Cassette No: 1041
Copies mailed on 09/18/91 to:
Unemployment Insurance - Salisbury (MABS)
Perdue Farms, Inc.