The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) has issued P-B-514 regarding good cause for voluntary quit and negation of good cause.  The case involves good cause for voluntary quit for verbal harassment and negation of good cause for failing to pursue remedial measures.

The decision first finds that the claimant was subjected to verbal abuse that was insulting, denigrating and intended to humiliate the claimant, and that the claimant was constantly belittled without justification in the workplace.  CUIAB held a reasonable person would find the treatment unacceptably harsh and abusive.  CUIAB continued that this treatment affected the claimant’s physical and mental well-being, and that overall there was an unacceptably harsh work environment.  Based on those findings, CUIAB held that the claimant had good cause to voluntarily quit her employment.

The decision continues that, although failure to give the employer an opportunity to resolve the situation negates good cause, there was not negation in this case.  The burden of proof is on the employer to show negation.  Failure of the employer to respond to an employee’s efforts to resolve a work-related issue relieves the employee of the obligation to make further inquiries or requests prior to leaving the job.

In this case, the claimant complained to human resources several times but did receive a response, and the no action was taken on the complaints.  Employer efforts to resolve a complaint may take significant time and an employee may be expected to be patient if they are informed of those efforts.  In this case, however, the employer did essentially nothing and did not respond to the claimant’s complaints.  As a result, the employer did not sustain its burden to show that the claimant negated good cause for her voluntary quit.  P-B-514 (April 18, 2018).

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) has issued P-B-510 which holds that due process requires the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to develop the record in an unemployment insurance hearing.  The case involves termination for tardiness based on an employer’s no fault attendance policy.  The decision first holds that an employer’s attendance policy has no bearing on eligibility for unemployment insurance, and whether an employee has committed misconduct is based on unemployment insurance law and the particular facts of the case and not on the employer’s attendance policy.

The decision continues that, in attendance cases, the final incident must be analyzed to determine if it is misconduct, and that is done by examining whether the incident breached an important duty to the employer and injured or tended to injure the employers interest.  If so, the employee must show good cause.  If there is not good cause, the employee will have committed misconduct if the final incident was substantially detrimental to the employer’s interest or the employee had at least one prior justified warning for a similar incident.

The CUIAB then found that the ALJ had to a duty to develop “a comprehensive evidentiary record” surrounding the final incident, including the reason for the tardiness, the reasons the employee did not provide notice of the tardiness, the impact on the employer and the facts surrounding prior attendance issues and reprimands.  The ALJ failed to develop the record, and that failure justified remand for a new hearing to fully develop the record.  P-B-510 (February 24, 2016).