| LOWER APPEALS DECISION
DECISION
| DECISION DATE: June 10, 1992 |
|
| |
|
| CLAIMANT: Judy C. Treadway |
APPEAL NO.: 9210161 |
| |
|
| EMPLOYER: Sovero Associates, Inc. |
L. O. NO.: 40 |
| |
|
|
APPELLANT: Claimant |
Issue: Whether the claimant left work voluntarily, without good
cause, within the meaning of MD Code, Labor and Employment
Article, Title 8, Section 1001.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW -
ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A REVIEW
AND SUCH PETITION FUR 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 June
25, 1992.
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:
Rocco Sovero President |
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant worked for this employer from November 9, 1991
through March 16, 1992. She was a commission employee
and worked for the employer as an employment consultant.
The claimant had worked for a prior associated business
prior to November 29, 1991.
The claimant voluntarily quit her employment on or about March
16, 1991 because she was not earning the amount of money
she had hoped and was displeased with the office environment in the new facility.
The credible evidence indicates that the claimant was working
in a Glen Burnie office which was approximately 27 miles
one-way to travel for the claimant. The claimant had earned
a larger salary and had difficulty making money during
these economic times. The claimant is an employment consultant
and only gets paid on the placements that she makes. The
claimant made a couple placements in November and December,
1991. However, in early 1992, the claimant's luck ran
out and she had difficulty placing people. The claimant
did not earn much money. She was earning approximately
$5.00 per hour. In addition, the claimant was displeased
with the office environment. The claimant was told on
more than one occasion that she should tone down her perfume.
The employer had to consolidate offices due to the economy.
This meant that there four people in small offices of
10'x12'. The employer had a complaint from one of the
co-workers that the claimant's perfume was irritating.
The claimant also disliked some of the meetings that she
had with the employer. The employer was trying to develop
alternative ways for the claimant to place clients. The
claimant did not wish to "try other alternatives to change her luck.
The claimant voluntarily quit her employment because of the
stress of getting to the office, the office environment
and her dissatisfaction with the job.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8,
Section 1001 provides that an individual shall be disqualified
for benefits where his unemployment is due to leaving
work voluntarily, without good cause arising from or connected
with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer.
The preponderance of the credible evidence in the record
will support a conclusion that the claimant voluntarily
separated from employment, without good cause, within
the meaning of Title 8, Section 1001.
In the instant case, the claimant voluntarily quit her job
because she was not making the money she was accustomed
to making and she did not like her work environment. The
claimant was dissatisfied with the changes that had occurred
after this job change. The claimant decided that it was
not worth her interest to continue working for an employer
traveling 27 miles one-way in an unsatisfactory environment.
The claimant voluntarily quit her employment, without
good cause attributable to the employer and without valid circumstances.
DECISION
The claimant voluntarily quit her employment, without good
cause, within the meaning of the Annotated Code of Maryland,
Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1001 of
the Law. Benefits are denied for the week beginning March
15, 1992 and until the claimant becomes reemployed and
earns at least ten times her weekly benefit amount ($1600)
and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of her own.
The determination of the Claims Specialist is affirmed.
Kevin M. O'Neill Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: June 3, 1992
ras\Specialist ID: 40309
Cassette in File
Copies mailed on June 10, 1992 to:
Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Eastpoint (MABS)
|
