LOWER APPEALS DECISION
|DECISION DATE: 9/7/90
|CLAIMANT: Chelli A. Kinsey
||APPEAL NO.: 9010729
|EMPLOYER: Nordstrom, Inc.
c/o Gibbens Company
|L. O. NO.: 20
Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct
connected with the work, within the meaning-of Section 6(b) 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 APPEALS DIVISION, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW
STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR
THE PERIOD FOR FILING A FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT
ON September 22, 1990.
|For the Claimant:
Claimant - Present
Jean Kinsey - Mother
| For the Employer:
Frank Gangi, Personnel Manager
Patrice Hebda, Gibbens Company
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant was discharged and applied for benefits. The
Claims Examiner determine that she was discharged for
gross misconduct and the maximum was imposed. She appeals.
The claimant was employed in various clerical capacities
from April 3, 1989 through May 24, 1990. Under the employer's
policies more than six absences or occurrences within
six months are grounds for discharge. This is a no fault
policy. Consequently, an employee may be discharged regardless of reason.
The claimant was absent on April 16, 1990 due to illness.
She was one minute late on May 1, 1990 due to traffic.
She was two minutes late on May 2, 1990 due to traffic. She
was absent on May 14, 1990 because her daughter was ill
and she called in.
She was late on May 16, 1990 because her daughter was ill
and she called in.
She was late on May 22, 1990 due to traffic and highway construction.
She was fifteen minutes late on May 23, 1990 because she woke up late.
She was absent on May 24, 1990 after suffering a miscarriage.
For the days she was tardy, she received one half occurrence
and for the days that she was absent all day, she received
a full occurrence.
It was a thirty minute commute to work for the claimant.
She normally left home an hour before she was due at work.
The claimant's absences except for May 23, 1990 were either
due to illnesses or traffic. Under the circumstances,
neither constitute misconduct under the Maryland Unemployment
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Article 95A, Section 6(b) 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 claimant was discharged under the employer's no fault
policy. I find that her absences except for May 23, 1990
were either due to illness or traffic, which was beyond
her control and; therefore, does not constitute misconduct
under the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
Her tardiness on May 23, 1990 due to sleeping late is by itself
insufficient to support a finding of misconduct.
The determination of the Claims Examiner is reversed. The
claimant was discharged but not for gross misconduct or
misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning
of Section 6(b) or Section 6(c) of the Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law. No disqualification is imposed based upon
her separation from employment with Nordstrom, Inc.
The claimant may contact the local office regarding the other
eligibilities requirements of the Law.
Van D. Caldwell, Hearing Examiner
Date of Hearing: 8/31/90
ps/Specialist ID: 20693
Cassette No: 6528
Copies mailed on 9/7/90 to:
Unemployment Insurance - Waldorf (MABS)