NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - HEARINGS AND APPEALS - MISCONDUCT OR SEPARATION RE: VACATIONS - CASE NO. 8 & 9

Clearly, taking a vacation without asking permission and/or after a clear denial would be misconduct as set set forth in this Appeal Board case from the Board's website:

"Index No. 1110-4

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION
ADJUDICATION SERVICES OFFICE

January 23, 1975

INTERPRETATION SERVICE – BENEFIT CLAIMS
MISCONDUCT
Absence and lateness
Insubordination

Appeal Board Decision 197,338

TIME OFF WITHOUT PERMISSION

Claimant’s precipitous action in announcing that he would take the next two days off for vacation, and then doing so in defiance of supervisor’s denial of permission, is misconduct.

Referee Decision: The initial determination of the local office disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits effective April 9, 1974, because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause by provoking his discharge, is overruled.

Appealed By: Employer

Findings of Fact: The claimant, a graphics, photo and paste-up man, worked for a newspaper for eight months until April 8, 1974. He was employed on a part-time basis, Monday through Wednesday, 9 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Late in the afternoon on Monday April 8, he told his immediate supervisor that he would be absent for the remainder of the week, as he was going to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for the Easter vacation. The supervisor remonstrated with claimant and advised claimant that he could not be spared, but claimant insisted on going. When claimant returned from Florida and reported back to work on Monday, April 15, his supervisor told him that he had been discharged.

Claimant’s job duties entailed the operation of sensitive photograph equipment requiring special training and experience. The skills that he possessed were needed particularly on the two days of each week, Tuesday and Wednesday, before the employer’s publication went to press. A replacement for the claimant, who would be satisfactory to the employer, would be difficult to obtain on short notice.

Opinion: The credible evidence establishes that late in the afternoon of Monday, April 8 the claimant told his immediate supervisor that he would not be in to work again until the following Monday, April 15, because he was going to Florida for the Easter vacation. The supervisor denied claimant permission to make the trip. On April 9 the claimant left for Florida. As a result of his precipitous action and the position in which he placed the employer thereby, claimant was discharged for what is deemed to be misconduct in connection with his employment.

Decision: The initial determination of the local office is modified to be on the ground that claimant lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith and as so modified, is sustained.

The decision of the referee is reversed. (October 28, 1974)"