0076 1267 09
0076 1267 09 (Sept. 29, 2023) – Review examiner’s reliance on a hearsay statement in an employment record to reject the employer’s consistent, unrefuted testimony as to the basis for firing the claimant was unreasonable in relation to the evidence presented. The record was produced after the hearing for the limited purpose of showing the claimant’s termination date, and the employer was not offered an opportunity to address the substantive entries. Where the employer discharged the claimant for several instances of no-call, no-show, the claimant’s separation is analyzed under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1). Lack of transportation may have constituted an urgent, compelling, and necessitous reason for not being able to report for work, but it does not explain why the claimant failed to notify the employer of his absences. Held the claimant is ineligible for benefits.
0075 9015 19
0075 9015 19 (Oct. 27, 2022) – Although the claimant submitted a two-week notice to resign, her manager asked her to stay and she agreed. Because a week later the employer notified her that she had been replaced and had to stop working, the Board held her separation was a discharge. Since there was no evidence of any misconduct, the Board further held that the claimant was eligible for benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).
0032 2392 04
0032 2392 04 (Mar. 11, 2020) – Employer stopped offering work to the claimant for an unknown reason after the claimant changed his schedule from a full-time to per diem, which the employer said was the only way to get three days off to interview for a second, part-time job. By not offering work, this is deemed to be a layoff and not disqualifying under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).
0024 7294 55
0024 7294 55 (Jan. 17, 2019) – Claimant had permission to leave work for a death in the family and, upon his return from out-of-state, called the employer several times to return to work. Where employer failed to return his calls, Board concludes that the claimant did not quit, but was discharged. Because there is no evidence of misconduct, the claimant may not be disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).
0019 8267 52
0019 8267 52 (July 17, 2017) – Although the employer officially "discharged" the claimant for job abandonment after leaving work without informing anyone, the Board disqualified her under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1), because the claimant told a human resource officer that she was done and thinking of quitting, she told the president that she was quitting, and she took home most of her personal belongings.
0019 4380 59
0019 4380 59 (June 29, 2017) – Claimant left his shift early after his supervisor warned him not to and was subsequently fired. The Board disqualified him under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2) for deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest. Being tired did not provide mitigating circumstances.
0018 7766 38
0018 7766 38 (Nov. 14, 2016) – Because the employer did not accept the terms of claimant’s proposed consulting agreement in lieu of continued employment, the proposal did not amount to a notice of resignation. The claimant was discharged after the employer hired his replacement and asked him to leave. There is no evidence of misconduct.
0008 9910 74
0008 9910 74 (June 9, 2014) – When the claimant failed his probationary period as a newly promoted supervisor and was told that he had to reapply for a cashier position, he was effectively discharged.