Decision Number 1563-BR-91 - Discharge - Sections 8-1002, 8-1002.1, 8-1003 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals
BOARD OF APPEALS
|DECISION NO: 1563-BR-91
DATE: December 13, 1991
|CLAIMANT: Charlie Farmer||APPEAL NO.: 9113957|
|EMPLOYER: Perdue Farms, Inc.
c/o Gates, McDonald
|L.O. NO: 12|
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct or misconduct, connected with the work, within the meaning of Section 8-1002 or 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -
YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, IF YOU RESIDE IN BALTIMORE CITY, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN WHICH YOU RESIDE.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES January 12, 1992.
|For the Claimant:||For the Employer:|
REVIEW ON THE RECORD
Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals affirms the decision of the Hearing Examiner. However, the Board corrects the Conclusions of Law to state that the claimant's gross misconduct connected with the work, was his failure to meet his duty to show up for work. The claimant's incarceration for a hand gun violation is not an excuse for the absenteeism that resulted from it. Atherton v. Potomac Amoco Co., 2025-BR-83.
The claimant was discharged for gross misconduct, connected with his work, within the meaning of Section 8-1002 of the Labor and Employment Article. He is disqualified from receiving benefits from the week beginning February 3, 1991 and until he becomes re-employed, earns at least ten times his weekly benefit amount ($1,460), and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of his own.
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed.
Donna P. Watts, Associate Member
Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
COPIES MAILED TO:
Perdue Farms, Inc.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - SALISBURY
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.