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 (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 (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).
0002 1114 94 (Nov. 4, 2013) – Held that claimant with two part-time jobs was in partial unemployment during a week when her employer reduced her hours. She was not required to turn down work from the other employer in order to make herself more available to the employer for replacement hours.
BR-113830 (Mar. 16, 2011) -- An employee, who was hired to work full time and whose employer then reduces his hours to part-time on-call, is in partial unemployment. The Mattapoisett doctrine does not disqualify a claimant under these circumstances.
BR-111378 (May 21, 2010) – On-call, part-time benefit year employment did not disqualify the claimant from receiving partial unemployment benefits. He was entitled to those benefits as a result of his full-time base period job, from which he was laid off.
BR-110825 (Aug. 6, 2010) – A claimant hired as a part-time, on-call employee, whose hours vary from 25 to 38 per week was ineligible for benefits under the Mattapoisett exclusion. He was not in unemployment under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 1(r)(1) and 29(a), as nothing in his employment relationship had changed and he continued to work under the same terms.
BR-109764 (Jan. 21, 2010) -- A claimant who is treated as a full-time employee cannot be considered an on-call worker subject to the Mattapoisett exclusion, even though he works variable hours. Claimant is entitled to partial benefits when the employer offers less than full-time hours.