Board of Review Decision 352-N4V5-H3K3

The claimant is automatically entitled to have her claim pre-dated pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), because the review examiner found that the employer did not provide her with the required written notice about how to file for unemployment benefits.

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 352-N4V5-H3K3

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny an earlier effective date for a claim for unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant separated from her position with the employer on October 27, 2024.She subsequently filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective August 17, 2025. The claimant later requested a pre-date for her 2025 claim to be effective on October 27, 2024. Her request to pre-date the claim was denied in a determination issued on October 21, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits attended by the claimant, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied the request to pre-date the claim in a decision rendered onNovember 22, 2025. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

An earlier effective date was denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant did not have good cause for failing to timely file her claim for benefits, and, thus, she was not entitled to have her claim pre-dated under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 23(b) and 24(c). After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to make subsidiary findings from the record pertaining to notice of her right to file a claim. Thereafter, the review examiner issued his consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record. 

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant is not entitled to a pre-date, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law, where, after remand, the review examiner found that the claimant’s former employer failed to give her written notice of how to file a claim.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and credibility assessment are set forth below in their entirety:

1. Prior to filing their claim, the claimant worked full-time as a supervisor for a community organization from January, 2023 until March 3, 2024.
2. On March 4, 2024, the claimant began a maternity leave of absence with an anticipated end date of September 5, 2024.
3. On an unknown date prior to the end of her leave of absence, the claimant informed the employer that she would not be returning to her full-time position and requested to work per diem.
4. The claimant did not want to return to work full-time due to caring for a newborn, post-partum depression, the recent death of her mother, anxiety, and general depression.
5. The claimant did not return to work.
6. The claimant did not remain in contact with the employer about working per diem.
7. On October 27, 2024, the employer purged the claimant from its payroll due to three months’ inactivity.
8. The claimant was not capable of full-time work from September 5, 2024, until approximately May, 2025 due to caring for her newborn, post-partum depression, and mourning her mother.
9. In approximately May, 2025, the claimant spoke to a Department of Transition[al] Assistance (DTA) employee about her work status. The DTA employee requested employment confirmation information from the claimant. The DTA employee also suggested that the claimant might be able to file for unemployment benefits.
10. On May 8, 2025, the claimant contacted the employer and was informed that her employment had been purged on October 27, 2024, due to three months’ inactivity.
11. The employer did not provide the claimant with written information on how to file for unemployment benefits.
12. The claimant does not remember if the employer had information on filing for unemployment benefits posted in the workplace.
13. The claimant has filed for unemployment benefits in the past, most recently in 2022.
14. The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with an effective date of August 17, 2025.
15. The claimant requested a predate of the reopening of her claim to October 27, 2024.
16. The claimant did not attempt to contact the DUA for assistance in opening her claim earlier.
17. No one discouraged the claimant from opening her claim earlier.
18. On October 21, 2025, the DUA sent the claimant a Determination under Section 23(b), because she did not establish good cause for not filing her claim earlier.

Credibility Assessment:

A review of the record was made for subsidiary findings. The claimant testified that she did not receive written information from the employer about filing for unemployment benefits. The testimony is consistent with the claimant’s additional testimony that she did not have contact with the employer after approximately September 6, 2024, until May, 2025. The claimant testified that she could not remember if the employer had information on filing posted in the workplace. The claimant’s testimony in both regards is deemed credible.

The claimant testified that she was unable to return to work due to the recent death of her mother, providing care for her newborn, post-partum depression, anxiety, and general depression. The claimant’s testimony concerning her medical conditions was consistent through the hearing. The claimant did not provide any medical documentation of her condition. The claimant testified that she was not capable of full-time work until approximately May, 2025. The claimant’s testimony concerning her medical conditions, including post-partum depression, is deemed credible despite the lack of documentation.

The claimant initially testified that she requested the per diem schedule on September 4, 2024. The claimant subsequently testified that she requested the per diem schedule on September 6, 2024. The claimant testified that she spoke to the assistant director by phone and that the assistant director, “basically said, okay” and to send an email to confirm the request. The claimant testified that she sent an email to the assistant director but never received a response and never followed up on the email. The claimant did not present the email as evidence. The claimant’s references to the email in her testimony did not contain any information that would suggest the claimant was in possession of an actual email, such as reading any excerpts from the email or having the date of the email. The claimant testified that she did not complete any other paperwork to switch her position to per diem, that she did not receive any confirmation from the employer that her position was switched to per diem, and that she did not receive any description of the per diem position from the employer. The claimant’s description of her switch to per diem does not appear to follow general business practices. Furthermore, the claimant’s testimony that she did not contact the employer for any work after the switch appears to indicate the claimant did not intend to accept any per diem work. Additionally, the claimant provided an email from the employer stating that she was purged from the payroll on October 27, 2024, due to “3 months of inactivity.” Three months prior to October 27, 2024, would be July 27, 2024, not September 6, 2024. Based on the testimony in the hearing and the documentary evidence, it does not seem credible that the claimant actually completed a request to switch her role to per diem work. Additionally, it does not seem credible that the claimant sent the assistant director an email on September 6, 2024.

The claimant admitted that she did not maintain contact with the employer after September 6, 2024. Based on the testimony provided and the above conclusions, it cannot be determined whether or not the employer offered the claimant work after September 6, 2024.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s original conclusion is free from error of law. Upon such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and deems them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. We further believe that the review examiner’s credibility assessment is reasonable in relation to the evidence presented. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to a pre-date of her 2025 claim. 

The legislature enacted G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), in order to ensure that workers are informed of the process for seeking unemployment benefits. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

Each employer shall issue to every separated employee, as soon as practicable, but not to exceed 30 days from the last day said employee performed compensable work, written information furnished or approved by said division which shall contain the name and mailing address of the employer, the identification number assigned to the employer by said division, instructions on how to file a claim for unemployment compensation, the address and telephone number of the regional office which serves the recipient, and the telephone number of the teleclaim information line. Delivery is made when an employer provides such information to an employee in person or by mail to the employee’s last known address. The waiting period under section 23 for an employee who did not receive the information required by this paragraph and who failed to file timely for benefits, shall be the Sunday of the initial week such employee would have been eligible to receive unemployment compensation. Each employer shall have the burden of demonstrating compliance with the provisions required herein.

(Emphasis added.) 

The review examiner concluded that the claimant had not shown good cause for failing to timely file her 2025 claim for unemployment benefits. The basis of the review examiner’s conclusion was his belief that, because the claimant had filed an unemployment claim in the past, she should have known how to file the current claim. Consolidated Finding 13.We disagree with the review examiner’s conclusion, as the claimant’s knowledge regarding her right to file a claim for unemployment benefits is immaterial in this case. 

Pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 23(b), 24(c), and 430 CMR 4.01(3) and 4.01(4), a claim effective date may be pre-dated under certain circumstances if good cause for the delay in reopening the claim is established. As noted above, the review examiner in this case concluded that the claimant did not provide good cause. However, G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), mandates granting a pre-date if the claimant’s former employer does not provide her with written information about how to file an unemployment claim.  

Because, after remand, the review examiner found that the claimant’s previous employer did not provide her with written notice about how to file an unemployment claim, the claimant is, by operation of law, entitled to have the effective date of her claim made retroactive to the Sunday of the initial week that she would have been eligible for unemployment compensation after she separated from the employer. Consolidated Finding 11. Since the claimant separated from her previous employer on October 27, 2024, the Sunday of the initial week she would have been eligible after separating is October 27, 2024. Consolidated Finding 7. 

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that pursuant to the requirements of G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), the claimant is automatically entitled to have her claim pre-dated. 

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to have the effective date on her claim pre-dated to October 27, 2024.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – April 14, 2026

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court.
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

SVL/rh