NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - HEARINGS AND APPEALS - MISCONDUCT OR SEPARATION WITH GOOD CAUSE - CASE NO. 7

Of course, not every "reprimand" constitutes harassment:

"A-750-400
Index No. 1650D-1
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION
ADJUDICATION SERVICES OFFICE

February 13, 1943

INTERPRETATION SERVICE – BENEFIT CLAIMS
VOLUNTARY LEAVING OF EMPLOYMENT
Grievances – other
Appeal Board Case No. 7927-42


VOLUNTARY LEAVING OF EMPLOYMENT – DISSATISFACTION WITH EMPLOYER’S METHOD OF OPERATION
(SECTION 506.2 OF THE LABOR)

Dissatisfaction with employer’s reasonable method of operation of business was not good cause for voluntary leaving of employment.

Referee’s Decision: Initial determination disqualifying claimant for voluntary leaving of employment without good cause is sustained. (9/18/42)

Appeal By: Claimant

Findings of Fact: Claimant worked for an employer engaged in defense work for six months prior to January 16, 1942. Claimant was dissatisfied with the manner in which the employer’s establishment was operated. He contended that the piece-work rates were low, that he lost time being transferred from one machine to another, that he had to be satisfied with $35 a week while other employees earned $75 a week, and that he was not given credit for spoiled work. On January 9, 1942 claimant requested his superior to assign him to a sixteen-hour daily work schedule. This request was denied. On January 16, 1942 claimant was reprimanded for mixing good work with twelve pieces of scrap in order to obtain credit for the spoiled work. After this incident claimant voluntarily left this employment, although he had no prospects for other employment. It was a rule in the establishment that employees would not receive in excess of their basic rate for work which was spoiled through their own carelessness.

Appeal Board Opinion: Claimant voluntarily left his employment because he was dissatisfied generally with the manner in which the employer operated the establishment. The rules in the plant were not unreasonable and applied to all of the employees alike. Furthermore, it does not appear that claimant’s piece-work rate was substantially less favorable than the wages prevailing for similar work in the locality. Claimant’s reasons for leaving his employment do not constitute good cause within the meaning of law.

Decision: The initial determination disqualifying claimant for voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause is sustained. The decision of the referee is affirmed. (12/14/42)"