Guarino v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1984
• Citation: 393 Mass. 89,469 N.E.2d 802
• Parties: Donna GUARINO v. DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al. 1
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 802

469 N.E.2d 802

393 Mass. 89

Donna GUARINO v. DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Middlesex.

Argued May 10, 1984.

Decided Oct. 1, 1984.

Sibley P. Reppert, Boston (Martin A. Hall, Boston, with him), for employer.

William M. Leonard, Boston, for employee.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

The defendant Coldwater Seafood Corporation, former employer of the plaintiff, appeals from a judgment in the District Court reversing a decision of the Division of Employment Security (division) which had denied the plaintiff unemployment compensation benefits. The judgment required that benefits be awarded. We reverse the judgment of the District Court and order the entry of a judgment remanding this case to the division for further findings.

The plaintiff left her employment and sought unemployment benefits under G.L. c. 151A. A review examiner of the division denied her application for benefits, concluding after a hearing that the plaintiff "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit within the meaning of [G.L. c. 151A, § 25 (e )(1)]." The board of review of the division (board) denied the plaintiff's application for review, thereby adopting the review examiner's decision. G.L. c. 151A, § 41 (c ). The plaintiff appealed, and a judge in the District Court reversed the decision of the board and ordered that benefits be awarded. The employer appeals to this court under G.L. c. 151A, § 42.

We set forth the findings of the review examiner, which were adopted by the board. The plaintiff worked as a fish packer on a packing line. Although the regular workday ended at 4:30 p.m., a condition of employment was that a fish packer would work until the supply of fish to be processed is exhausted. Overtime commenced eight minutes after 4:30 p.m. On March 12, 1981, the plaintiff and some of her coworkers walked off their line exactly at 4:30 p.m. although there was still fish to be packed. When the plaintiff reported to work on March 13, she and others involved in the incident were issued warning letters. On that day the production manager assigned the plaintiff to a different line from the one on which she had worked on the previous day. The supervisor of the line to which the plaintiff was assigned on the morning of March 13 had been "newly-hired."

The review examiner found that after forty-five minutes on the job, a disagreement arose between the plaintiff and the newly-hired supervisor having to do with "pushing" fish. ² Pushing fish was not one of the plaintiff's duties although she had done it many times before on her own. According to the review examiner, the plaintiff "walked off the line and punched her time card before pursuing the problem with the production manager and along with the supervisor attempted to resolve the disagreement with her to no avail. The [plaintiff] went to the personnel manager to discuss the problem whereupon, he also attempted to resolve the issue again to no avail and she left the premises without requesting a transfer to other work or a leave of absence. The [plaintiff] had seen a doctor in the past for a rash but was not advised at that time to leave her work and she had no subsequent treatment for any other problem. The [plaintiff] had an unfair labor practice filed by a labor organization attempting to unionize the company but did not seek any other remedies available to her regarding working conditions prior to her leaving."

After stating his findings, which we have paraphrased in part and quoted in part, the review examiner noted in his decision "The [plaintiff] contends that she was harassed and put under a lot of pressure and had to quit because of an attempt to obtain union recognition and although she had attempted to resolve the issue of pushing the fish a number of times before, felt that there was no point in continuing her effort because of the employer's repeated disregard of their own policy."

After noting those contentions of the plaintiff, the examiner's decision concludes as follows: "It is found that the [plaintiff] left her work because she was dissatisfied with the working conditions, that she failed to request a transfer to other work or a leave of absence, that she was not advised to leave by a physician, and that she failed to exercise all the remedies available to her regarding working conditions. It is further found that she was not harassed because of her union activity and that the employer had attempted to resolve the pushing of fish, although not to the satisfaction of the [plaintiff] and it is determined that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit within the meaning of Section 25(e)(1) of the Law."

The District Court judge's decision states that the review examiner appeared to have "ignored or not pursued" two contentions of the plaintiff: (1) she was the object of harassment by supervisors because of her union activity or at least because she participated in a concerted protest over uncompensated overtime, and (2) she was required by supervisors to hold back fish on the conveyor belt contrary to the terms of her employment. The judge concluded that "the record requires a determination that plaintiff's termination was not voluntary but was for 'good cause attributable to [the] employing unit' and therefore denial of benefits is based on an error of law and not supported by substantial evidence." The judge reversed the findings and decision of the board and ordered the director to award benefits to the plaintiff from the date of her application.

The judge's conclusion that the record requires a determination in the plaintiff's favor and his order implementing that conclusion were erroneous. "The burden of proof as to all aspects of eligibility for unemployment benefits, including the burden...