The mere fact that the misconduct adversely affects the employer's interests is not enough. In order to meet the "connected with the work" requirement, the misconduct must be incident to the work or directly related to the employment status. The Court also stated that "the law writers generally agree that a breach of duty to the employer, although not in itself sufficient, is an essential element to make the act one connected with the work." Since no such limitation was indicated, it is obvious the provisions of the statute were intended to deny unemployment compensation to a claimant who was discharged - and hence unemployed - because of misconduct regardless of when or where it occurred so long as such misconduct was in law connected with the employee's work." If it had, the language used would have undoubtedly expressed that intent. The Court in LeCates, supra, stated that ".the legislature did not intend to limit misconduct 'connected with' the employee's work to misconduct which occurred during the hours of employment and on the employer's premises. AT Systems Atlantic, Inc., 2257-BH-2007.Īn employer must demonstrate not only that a claimant committed misconduct, but also that the misconduct was "connected with the work." In determining whether an employee's actions are connected with the work, the following circumstances should be considered:ġ) Whether there was a breach of duty to the employer Ģ) Whether the act occurred during the hours of employment ģ) Whether the act occurred on the employer's premises Ĥ) Whether the act occurred while the employee was engaged in his work andĥ) Whether the employee took advantage of the employment relation in order to commit the act.Įmployment Security Board v. The employer’s evidence included a signed admission by the claimant as well as testimony of the claimant’s branch manager who observed the claimant’s behavior on a surveillance camera. The claimant’s discharge after the admitted theft of three deposit bags of many totaling $14,538.50 was determined to be for aggravated misconduct. Washington Overhead Door, Inc., 01191-BR-97. In reaching its conclusion, the Board attached no merit to claimant's assertions that he was not the aggressor in the situation and was provoked. The Board determined that the act of the claimant was done with malice. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc., 00866-BR-97.Ī claimant who was discharged for striking a supervisory co-worker in the face was discharged for aggravated misconduct. A penalty for a discharge for aggravated misconduct was invoked. The Board determined that the act was done with malice and that the property loss was so serious that the penalties of misconduct or gross misconduct were insufficient. The claimant, a licensed pharmacist, was discharged by the employer for the theft of a controlled dangerous substance which had been the property of the employer (a hospital). Trustee-Sheppard Pratt Hosp., 02782-BR-96. Where a claimant without provocation slapped a co-employee on both sides of his face and pushed co-employee into a trash can, the claimant's actions constitute aggravated misconduct. Requisite "intent" existed when the claimant sold the property belonging to another. The Board ruled that the value of the property is not the sole determining factor. When a claimant sold a television off of the employer's truck contrary to all employer rules and regulations, the Board found the discharge to be for aggravated misconduct. Community Services of Maryland, Inc., 545-BR-01. The "mismanagement of funds" was held to be a "breach of duty and a wanton disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer had a right to expect supporting a finding of "gross misconduct". Madison Warehouse Corp., 387-BR-01.Ī claimant's mismanagement of employer funds lacked the requisite element of "actual malice" to rise to the level of aggravated misconduct. The Board found that such behavior is sufficient to sustain a discharge for aggravated misconduct. The claimant cashed and converted one of the checks to his own use. Scien., 00089-BR-98.Ī claimant ordered a customer of the employer to make three checks payable to himself (the claimant) for the sale of employer's property. The claimant's actions support a finding of aggravated misconduct. The claimant repeatedly processed unauthorized transactions, converting approximately $52,000.00 of the employer's funds to her own personal account without explanation or justification and spent approximately $42,000.00 of those funds.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |