BR-1 #3 S T A T E O F C O N N E C T I C U T
Department of Labor
Employment Security Appeals Division
Board of Review
200 Folly Brook Blvd.
Wethersfield, CT 06l09
IMPORTANTE - TENGA ESTO TRADUCIDO
INMEDIATAMENTE - TIEMPO LIMITADO PARA APELAR
*****Board Case No. and Claimant's Name:
1057-BR-95
VINCENZA ALFIERI Appealed from
Referee's determination Case No:
SS# XXX-XX-XXXX 2. Date appeal
filed: June 8, 1995
Employer's Name, Address & Reg. No.
3. Appeal filed by: Claimant
BATTISTON'S OF AVON, INC.
c/o UTMC
Lakeside Office Park #12 4. Date mailed to interested
Wakefield, MA 01880 parties: July 21, 1995
ER# 90-350-41
Provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes involved:
Section 31-236(a)(2)(B)
CASE HISTORY - SOURCE OF APPEAL:
The Administrator ruled the claimant eligible for unemployment benefits for the week ending April 8, 1995, and notified the employer of its chargeability on April 17, 1995.
The employer appealed the Administrator's decision on May 3, 1995.
Appeals Referee Charles C. Dearborn reversed the Administrator's ruling by a decision issued on June 1, 1995.
The claimant appealed the Referee's decision to the Board of Review on June 8, 1995.
CASE NO. 1057-BR-95 Page 2
Acting under authority contained in Section 31-249 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Board of Review has reviewed the record in this appeal, including the tape recording of the Referee's hearing.
The Referee ruled that the claimant was discharged for repeated wilful misconduct and thus was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Specifically, the Referee found that the claimant left early on two occasions without the employer's permission.
In support of this appeal from the Referee's decision, the claimant contends that she left early on March 31, 1995, because she was extremely tired and was concerned for her safety if she continued to work on the employer's machines in her fatigued state.
The record reveals that the claimant worked as a machine operator for the employer from August 11, 1992, until March 31, 1995. The employer generally requires its employees to remain at its facility until the day's work is complete. After she had worked nine consecutive hours without a lunch break and after completing ten lots of shirts on March 31, 1995, the claimant punched out to go home. However, the claimant's supervisor, who had observed her punch out, explained that there was approximately forty-five minutes of work still to be completed and asked the claimant to remain. The claimant responded by stating that she was extremely fatigued and wanted to go home. The claimant was then advised that if she chose to leave, she should not return.
Where a claimant understands at the time of hire that overtime is mandatory, his or her subsequent refusal to work overtime generally constitutes wilful misconduct unless the claimant has good cause for the refusal. Adger v. First Security Services Corp., Board Case No. 560-BR-88 (7/27/88). After operating a pressing machine for nine consecutive hours without a break, we find it reasonable that the claimant would be extremely tired and unable to continue working. Moreover, we recognize the potential for harm while operating this equipment is much higher when the operator is not adequately rested. We recognize that the claimant personally chose not to take her normal lunch break on March 31, 1995; nonetheless, we find after working nine hours in a physically demanding and potentially dangerous job, the claimant had good cause for her refusal to work additional overtime.
Accordingly, we find that the employer failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the final act that triggered the claimant's discharge rose to the level of wilful misconduct and thus the claimant is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
CASE NO. 1057-BR-95 Page 3
The decision of the Referee is reversed and the appeal is sustained. In so ruling we adopt the Referee findings of fact as modified above.
BOARD OF REVIEW
_____________________________________
Bennett Pudlin, Chairman
In this decision alternate Board member George Meehan concurs.
BP:JEC:sla
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU MUST DO SO BY AUGUST 21, 1995. SEE LAST PAGE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS.