State offices and all DLLR physical locations will be closed to the public November 26 through November 28, 2014. However, Unemployment Insurance telephone and Web operations WILL be available on Wednesday, November 26.

DLLR's Unemployment Insurance Appeals

 

Decision Number 1462-BR-91 - Able to Work, Available for Work and Actively Seeking Work - Sections 8-903, 8-904, 8-907 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest

 

BOARD OF APPEALS - REMAND FROM COURT

DECISION

DECISION NO: 1462-BR-91
DATE: Nov. 19, 1991
 
CLAIMANT: Katherine Koski APPEAL NO.: 9005673
 
EMPLOYER: Apex Associates, Inc. L.O. NO: 10
 
APPELLANT: Remand from Court

Issue: Whether the claimant was able to work, available for work and actively seeking work within the meaning of Section 8-903 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 December 19, 1991.

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant: For the Employer:

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

This case was remanded to the Board of Appeals by the Circuit Court for Dorchester County. Upon further review of the record in the case, the Board reverses its prior decision and the decision of the Hearing Examiner and concludes that the claimant was meeting the requirements of Section 8-903 of the Labor and Employment Article (formerly Article 95A, Section 4(c) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law).

The claimant's credible and unrebutted testimony is that she was actively seeking full-time work during the period in question. The reason for her disqualification was that she anticipated going into business with her husband sometime in the near future and that some of her perspective employers knew this when she applied for work with them.

The Board has previously held that no disqualification is appropriate under this section of the law where an otherwise able, available and actively seeking work claimant intends to return to a former job when permitted to do so. In Bentz v. Pleasant View Nursing Home, 411-BR-81, the Board held that it was inconsistent with the purpose of the unemployment insurance law to disqualify claimants on grounds of unavailability for work solely because they honestly indicate to perspective employers the realities of their employment situation. In that case, the claimant told prospective employers that she intended to return to her former occupation, nursing, after her baby was born.

Applying the reasoning of that case here, the Board concludes that the claimant was not unreasonably restricting her availability for work, and therefore the prior decision should be reversed.

DECISION

The claimant was able to work, available for work and actively seeking work within the meaning of Section 8-903 of the Labor and Employment Article. Benefits are allowed from the week beginning April 8, 1990.

The previous decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Donna P. Watts, Associate Member

HW:W
kbm

COPIES MAILED TO:
CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - CAMBRIDGE

 

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

The last sentence in the second paragraph has been deleted. It should not have been apart of the decision.

CORRECTED DECISION

DECISION NO: 455 -DR-90
DATE: July 13, 1990
 
CLAIMANT: Katherine O. Koski APPEAL NO.: 9005672 & 9005673
 
EMPLOYER: Apex Associates, Inc. L.O. NO: 10
 
APPELLANT: Claimant

After receipt of your Petition for Review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner, the Board of Appeals has considered all of the facts and records in your case.

The Board of Appeals has concluded that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is in conformity with the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law and, accordingly, your Petition for Review is denied.

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE BELOW STATED. THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN, IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN WHICH YOU RESIDE.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL TO COURT EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT, AUGUST 12, 1990.

Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Donna P. Watts, Associate Member

W:W
kk
COPIES MAILED TO:
CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - CAMBRIDGE

 

 

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

DECISION DATE: May 24, 1990  
 
CLAIMANT: Katherine O. Koski APPEAL NO.: 9005673
 
EMPLOYER: Apex Associates, Inc. L. O. NO.: 3
 
APPELLANT: Claimant

Issue: Whether the claimant was able, available and actively seeking work, within the meaning of Section 4(c) of the Law.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW -

ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A REVIEW AND SUCH PETITION FOR REVIEW 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 PETITION FOR REVIEW EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON June 8, 1990.

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant:
Katherine O. Koski - Claimant
For the Employer:
Keith Mayo, President/General Manager
Frank Bradley, Sales Manager

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Claims Examiner determined the claimant to be unavailable for full-time employment without restriction based upon a statement offered to the Claims Examiner at the time of the original interview.

The facts offered to the Claims Examiner are materially the same as presented at the appeals hearing which were "I would accept full-time employment at this time but only until the summer. My husband and I are planning to build chicken houses and we have gotten prices but nothing started as far as building. We do have building permits and have had the land tested but I am looking for work each week at this time. I am going to quit as soon as the chicken houses are ready. I will be the person responsible for caring for the chicken houses and I am only available for work until the chicken houses are ready."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Article 95A, Section 4(c) provides that a claimant for unemployment insurance benefits must be (1) able and available for work and (2) actively seeking work without restrictions upon his/her availability for work. In Robinson v. Employment Security Board (202 Md. 515). The Court of Appeals upheld the principle that a claimant may not impose restrictions upon his/her willingness to work and still be "available" as the Statute requires.

The evidence in this case demonstrates that the claimant is seeking merely a temporary employment until such time as she is established in a family business. Such a circumstance is not equivalent to being available with restriction as contemplated by the Statute of Section 4(c). In this case there is a restriction upon the claimant's availability for work and that restriction is that the availability is temporary and extends to a limited and definable time. Under these circumstances, the determination of the Claims Examiner is in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(c) and may not be disturbed.

DECISION

It is held that the claimant is not meeting the availability requirements of Section 4(c) of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law and is, therefore, ineligible for the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits for that reason.

The determination of the Claims Examiner is affirmed.

The claimant is held to be ineligible for benefits from the week beginning April 8, 1990 and until such time that she is in full compliance with the requirements of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.

Louis Wm. Steinwedel
Deputy Hearing Examiner

Date of Hearing: May 11, 1990
bch/Specialist ID: 10167
Cassette No: 3977
Copies mailed on May 24, 1990 to:

Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Cambridge (MABS)