• 0017 5436 74  pdf format of 0017 5436 74

    0017 5436 74 (Oct. 20, 2016) – The claimant was offered the opportunity to apply for a job.  Such an offer does not constitute a definite offer of work, and, therefore, her failure to apply for the job does not constitute a rejection of suitable or unsuitable work under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(c).

  • 0016 2073 23  pdf format of 0016 2073 23

    0016 2073 23 (Dec. 24, 2015) – A temporary employee, who had worked full-time at one assignment for approximately a year, did not refuse an offer of suitable work.  The employer offered only sixteen hours of work about a month after the end of the full-time assignment.  [Note:  The District Court affirmed the Board of Review.]

  • 0014 0062 59  pdf format of 0014 0062 59

    0014 0062 59 (Mar. 9, 2015) – A claimant, who turned down a number of hours per week from the employer at a location which she reasonably believed caused her health problems, was entitled to partial unemployment benefits.  In light of other statutory provisions and applicable case law, we interpret G.L. c. 151A, § 1(r)(1) to permit a claimant to refuse unsuitable work.

  • 0012 3564 87  pdf format of 0012 3564 87

    0012 3564 87 (Oct. 10, 2014) – A laid-off commercial driver and carpenter was not disqualified pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29 and 1(r), when he declined to accept additional hours of work from his part-time subsidiary employer.  The offered work was not suitable full-time employment, because it was several dollars less per hour than his customary work and outside of his usual occupational field.  

  • 0001 1361 33  pdf format of 0001 1361 33

    0001 1361 33 (Sept. 15, 2014) – A claimant, who refused an offer of work from one employer because she was working in other suitable employment, was not disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29(a),(b), and 1(r).

  • 0008 9771 96  pdf format of 0008 9771 96

    0008 9771 96 (May 15, 2014) – A claimant, who could only work weekdays in the morning and until 3:00 p.m. due to childcare responsibilities, had good cause to restrict her work search where her work history showed that work was available within these restrictions.  Given that the claimant made $13.00 per hour, a one-hour shift at a location far away from her home was not an offer of suitable employment.