LOWER APPEALS DECISION
|DECISION DATE: 4/29/93
|CLAIMANT: John H. Sansone
||APPEAL NO.: 9306444
||L. O. NO.: 8
Issue: Whether the claimant was able, available and actively seeking work under
the MD Code, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8,Section 903 and 806 untimely appeal.
- 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 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 May 14, 1993.
NOTE: APPEALS FILED BY MAIL INCLUDING SELF-METERED MAIL, ARE CONSIDERED FILED ON
THE DATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE POSTMARK
|For the Claimant:
Claimant - Present
| For the Employer:
| Nikki Gladding,
Unemployment Insurance Supervisor
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits establishing non-monetary
eligibility for the year beginning January 31, 1993 and qualifying
for a weekly benefit amount of $49.00. The record shows that
the claimant was denied benefits and was sent a determination
advising him of the denial and that he could file an appeal
no later than March 16, 1993.The claimant filed his request
for an appeal hearing by mail and it was marked as received on March 17, 1993.
The local office did
not retain a copy of the claimant's envelope, but it is logical
to assume that in order for the letter to have been received
by March 17, 1993, it had to have been mailed at least one or
two days prior thereto. Therefore, the appeal will be considered timely filed.
The local office shows
that the claimant reported for an Eligibility Review Interview
on February 17, 1993. At that time, the claimant explained that
he was a self-employed laborer doing yard work and other odd
jobs. At the time of the interview and again at this hearing,
the claimant explained that he looked for contracts by bidding
on jobs with various companies. He has control over the hours
he works and the claimant repeatedly stated that he works for himself.
The claimant is still
unemployed and has tried to get food stamps, but was advised
by Social Services that he had to file for unemployment first.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Code of Maryland, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 903 and 904 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 claimant was questioned extensively about his job contacts and the method used for searching
for work. He maintained throughout the intense inquiry that he
is self employed and bids on various jobs. He meets all criteria
as a self employed person or a "jobber".
The determination of the Claims Examiner will be affirmed.
It is held that the claimant filed a timely appeal as provided by Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law, Title 8, Section 806.
It is held that the claimant is not able, available and actively seeking work as
required by Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law, Title 8, Section
903. Benefits are denied for the week beginning January 31,
1993 and until the claimant meets the requirements of the Law.
The determination of the Claims Examiner is affirmed.
Mary Welcome, Hearing Examiner
DATE OF HEARING: 4/13/93
SPECIALIST ID: 08005
kb/CASSETTE IN FILE
COPIES MAILED ON April 29, 1993 TO:
Unemployment Insurance - Annapolis (MABS)