Assessors' Clerk's Unemployment Hearing Decision

Massachusetts Department of
Workforce Development
West Central Regional Office
Hearings Department
88 Industry Avenue, Ste A
Springfield, MA, 01104-3296

Linda Levitre
536 N Poland Rd.
Conway, MA, 01341-9730
Docket: 522802
Mail Date: July 23, 2009
Appellant: Claimant
Local Office: 02-0

Claimant: Linda Levitre
538 N. Poland Rd.
Conway, MA, 01341-9730

Employer: Town of Ashfield
P.O. Box 560
Ashfield, MA, 01330-0000
EMP#: 78302810

Date of Determination: 06/19/09
Hearing Request Filed: 06/23/09
Hearing Date: 07/21/09
Location of Hearing: GREENFIELD

Original Determination: Overturned

Appearance: Claimant, Employer, no attorneys

You may Appeal this Decision to the Board of Review. The last day to file an appeal is 8/24/2009

DECISION

I. STATUTORY PROVISION(S) AND ISSUE(S) OF LAW:
MGL. Chapter 151A, &&25(e)(1) & (e)(2) – Whether there is substantial and credible evidence to show that the claimant left work voluntarily with good cause attributable to the employer or its agent, or involuntarily for urgent, compelling and necessitous reasons, or by discharge for deliberate misconduct in willful disregard of the employing unit’s interest, or for a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced policy or rule, unless the violation was the result of the employee’s incompetence.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The claimant worked as an Assessor’s Clerk for the employer from 5-11-08 to 3-20-09, at a rate of $12.75 per hour.
2. On 3-20-09, the claimant resigned her position because of an untenable work environment caused by another employee, specifically harassment and the suggestion of one of the assessors that she was not suited for the job and should look for other employment.
3. One of the assessors engaged in behavior that the claimant considered harassing, specifically leaving a chair in front of a door, putting a hundred paperclips on the floor and leaving them there, throwing away papers with information needed by the claimant to perform a task she had been assigned, refusing to use his own password that had been assigned to improve accountability, and criticizing her ability to do her job.
4. The claimant reported the behavior of the assessor to another assessor. His response was that was just his personality and she had to deal with it.
5. During her employment the claimant communicated with individuals in the assessor’s office in two nearby towns to get assistance in learning and performing her duties.
6. On 3-17-09 or 3-18-09, the assessor was in the office when the claimant was there. He spent over an hour “hollering” in her face, telling her that she was obviously incapable, telling her that some people were suited for types of work and some were not and that she should look at herself, and suggesting that she look around for other employment.
7. The claimant thought about what the assessor said to her and how he said it, and decided to take his advice. On 3-21-09 she submitted her resignation effective immediately. Her resignation email stated in part as follows: “It has been made very plain to me that this is neither the job nor the place for me to work.”
8. ON 5-6-09, the claimant filed a claim for benefits.

III. CONCLUSIONS & REASONING:

Both the claimant and the employer attended the hearing.
The claimant was not discharged from her job. Therefore, Section 25(e)(2) is not applicable to this matter.
In a Section 25(e)(1) case, the burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish that her leaving was voluntary with good cause attributable to the employing unit, or involuntary for urgent, compelling, and necessitous reasons.
Given the facts as stated above, the claimant met her burden of proof. This claimant resigned her position because of an untenable work environment caused by another employee, specifically harassment and the suggestion of one of the assessors that she was not suited for the job and should look for other employment. The claimant spoke to another assessor about the behavior. That assessor either could not or would not remedy the situation. Prior to leaving, the claimant took reasonable steps to resolve the problem. Thus, it is concluded that the claimant’s leaving was voluntary with good cause attributable to the employing unit.
There was no evidence that the claimant’s leaving was for urgent, compelling, and necessitous reasons.

In view of the facts, the claimant is not subject to disqualification and is entitled to benefits.

IV. DECISION:

The determination is reversed. The claimant is entitled to benefits beginning with the week ending 5-9-09 and subsequent weeks, if otherwise eligible.

HEARINGS DEPARTMENT
By: Hildie Osley/eml
REVIEW EXAMINER

COPIES TO:
Claimant
Employer
Local Office
File