Moore v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1983 |
| Citation | 390 Mass. 1004,457 N.E.2d 279 |
| Parties | Elizabeth MOORE v. DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al. 1 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William M. Leonard, Boston, for plaintiff.
George J. Mahanna, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Director of Div. of employment sec.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This appeal challenges the decision of the board of review (board) of the Division of Employment Security, denying unemployment benefits to the plaintiff. The decision was affirmed by a judge of the Plymouth District Court. Pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 42, this case came here for direct review with a report from that court. We affirm.
We summarize the review examiner's findings of fact. 2 Moore worked for the Boston Zoological Society from January, 1975, to October 21, 1981, as a switchboard operator and receptionist. Moore's hours of work were 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. In early August, 1981, Moore moved to Plymouth. In early September, Moore began riding to work with her daughter-in-law. By riding with her daughter-in-law Moore arrived at work between 9 and 9:30 A.M. Moore's supervisor told her to be at the switchboard by 8:30 A.M. On October 16, 1981, Moore learned that she was eligible for fuel assistance, and that the application had to be made at Plymouth on October 19, 1981, between 9:30 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. Moore told the bookkeeper that she was taking October 19 off for personal business. On October 19, Moore telephoned her supervisor at 7:30 A.M. and left the same message. Moore did not complete the application for fuel assistance on October 19. She called her employer and left a message that she would not be in on October 20 because of personal business.
On October 21, 1981, Moore reported for work at 9:30 A.M. At approximately 12:30 P.M., Moore asked to speak to her supervisor about her absences and tardiness. Moore knew the supervisor was upset. At the meeting Moore told her supervisor if the supervisor did not like what she was saying, the supervisor could fire her. The supervisor fired Moore. Moore went back to the switchboard. At 3 P.M., Moore apologized to her supervisor for losing her temper. The supervisor instructed her to report to work the next day. The next day Moore reported to work at 9:30 A.M. Moore's employment was terminated.
The review examiner found that Moore was discharged because she reported to work at 9:30 A.M., instead of her regularly scheduled time of 8:30 A.M. The review examiner concluded that her discharge on October 22, was solely for deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employing unit's interest within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e )(2). Moore claims that the board's conclusion that she was fired for arriving at 9:30 on October 22 is not supported by substantial evidence. We do not agree.
At the hearing, Moore said that she knew her employer wanted the switchboard opened at 8:30 A.M. She knew the hours of her job were 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. On October 22, Moore again came to work at 9:30 A.M., and she was discharged.
The purpose of § 25(e )(2) is "to deny benefits to a claimant who has brought about his own unemployment through intentional disregard of standards of behavior which his employer has a right to expect." Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 377 Mass. 94, 97, 384 N.E.2d 642 (1979). Moore's failure to report for work at 8:30 A.M. could be found to be "intentional disregard of the standards of behavior which [her] employer ha[d] a right to expect." Id.
Moore claims that her absences from her job in order to obtain a fuel allowance and her quarrel with her supervisor were a significant part of the decision to discharge her, and those reasons do not constitute deliberate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantres v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.
...e.g., Jean v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 391 Mass. 206, 209, 460 N.E.2d 197 (1984); Moore v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 1004, 457 N.E.2d 279 (1983); Torres, supra, 387 Mass. at 780, 443 N.E.2d 1297; Garfield, supra 377 Mass. at 97, 384 N.E.2d 642. Becau......
-
Starks v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.
...of Employment Security, supra, 377 Mass. at 96 n. 2, 384 N.E.2d 642" (emphasis in original). Moore v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 1004, 1006 n. 3, 457 N.E.2d 279 (1983).7 The plaintiff alleges that the District Court judge erred in affirming the decision of the board ......
-
Quintal v. Commissioner of Dept. of Employment and Training
...review examiner, we consider the review examiner's findings to be the findings of the board. Moore v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 1004, 1004 n. 2, 457 N.E.2d 279 (1983).3 The general manager had requested the warehouse manager to produce the proper paperwork for the s......
-
DiNatale v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.
...when the claimant was warned that his tardiness would result in discharge, and he was tardy. See Moore v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 1004, 457 N.E.2d 279 (1983), for a similar tardiness case. See also Rioni v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 392 Mass. 436, 4......