Friday, May 11, 2012

NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - FALSE JOB APPLICATION

Misconduct was found in the following false application (note in bold, the reason for the false application):

"Index 1150A-7

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Unemployment Insurance Division
Adjudication Services Office

June 18, 1975

Interpretation Service - Benefit Claims
MISCONDUCT
Falsification of employment application

Appeal Board Decision 204,070

CONCEALMENT OF PRIOR EMPLOYMENT

Deliberate omission of a prior employer from an employment application may be misconduct.

Referee decision: The initial determination of the local office disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits effective October 1, 1974, because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith, is overruled.

Appealed by: Employer

Findings of Fact: Claimant was employed as a senior buyer in a hospital on August 29, 1973. After he was discharged on May 31, 1974, he filed a grievance as a result of which he was reinstated on September 9, 1974. In attempting to catch up on his paper work, claimant took home hospital purchase record cards. Although this was common practice among hospital employees, claimant was unaware that to do so was against hospital policy. When the employer discovered that its records had been removed and ordered claimant to bring them back to the office, claimant complied. On Friday, September 27, 1974, the employer received information that the claimant had omitted from his employment application in 1973, at the time of original hire, and in 1974, when he was reinstated, any indication that in 1968 he had worked at a Florida hospital. The employment applications which claimant signed included a statement that he knew that giving false information could lead to his dismissal. On Monday, September 30, 1974, the employer discharged claimant because he had falsified his employment applications and also for the removal of hospital records without permission. The claimant admitted that he did not disclose his employment at the Florida hospital because he was afraid of getting a bad recommendation.

Opinion: The credible evidence now before the Board establishes that the claimant deliberately omitted material information regarding his prior employment from his employment applications, despite the fact that he was aware that the giving of false information could lead to his discharge. While he may have considered it wise to omit such vital information, nevertheless, by so doing he is chargeable with misconduct in connection with his employment.

In view thereof, we need not consider the question of whether or not claimant's removal of the hospital records from the office also constituted an act of misconduct in connection with his employment.

Decision: The initial determination of the local office is sustained.

The decision of the referee is reversed. (May 28, 1975)"

No comments:

Post a Comment