Berdych v. Department of Employment and Training

BISHOP, Judge. After becoming unemployed, Gerard Berdych, appellant, filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Employment and Training (DET). A claims examiner determined that because appellant quit his employment without good cause, he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to MD.ANN. CODE art. 95A, § 6(a).

Berdych appealed his disqualification and a DET hearing examiner, after conducting a full evidentiary hearing, affirmed the denial of benefits. Steadfastly contending that he is eligible for benefits, appellant challenged the claims and hearing examiners’ conclusions in two other fora: first, DET’s Board of Appeals and then Baltimore County Circuit Court. In each case, the denial of benefits was affirmed. On appeal, Berdych raises three issues: I. Did DET properly deny appellant his unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left his job without good cause pursuant to article 95A, section 6(a) of the Maryland Code?

II

Did DET’s waiver of various eligibility requirements render section 6(a) disqualification inapplicable to his claim?

III

Did the “suitable work” limitation pursuant to article 95A, section 6(b) of the Maryland Code excuse appellant from section 6(a) disqualification? FACTS On April 14, 1985, Gerard Berdych lost his job when his employer, Western Electric, shut down the plant at which he had worked for fourteen years. In anticipation of the lay off, appellant decided to acquire additional occupational skills that would enhance his prospects of employment. On March 25, 1985, he began classes in industrial maintenance at the Eastside Occupational Center (Eastside).

The length of the course was five months, from March 25th through the end of August. ⁴⁸⁷ Eastside is a state-approved training school, enrollment at which entitles its out-of-work students to receive unemployment compensation without complying with all the statutory conditions for eligibility. Specifically, the statute waives the application of the provisions in this subsection relating to availability for work and active search for work or the provisions of § 6(d) of this article relating to failure to apply for, or refusal to accept suitable work. MD.ANN.CODE art. 95A, § 4(c) (1985). Pursuant to this provision, students who receive a waiver from DET are relieved of their obligations to seek employment and to accept suitable work, if offered.

Since Berdych had enrolled at a state-approved training facility, DET granted his request for a waiver of these requirements. After he started the training program and rather than rely on unemployment compensation to support his family, Berdych sought and procured temporary, full-time employment as a laborer at New Jersey Steel Fabricating Division in Bowie, Maryland. When he accepted this position, his only intention was to remain at this job until he completed his retraining program at Eastside. Throughout his employment at New Jersey Steel, his employers were cooperative, providing Berdych with a flexible working schedule so that he could attend evening classes.

His career aspirations were in industrial maintenance, which would offer him greater career opportunities and job security. Immediately, it became obvious that the full-time job-interfered with appellant’s studies at Eastside. In addition to the long hours, the job was physically demanding and required a commute of approximately one hundred miles. On April 26, 1983, after just eleven days on the job at New Jersey Steel, appellant quit and switched to a daytime training program.

Beginning May 30, 1983, he attended school five days a week, 36 hours a week, through the end of August. Because he found that it was not possible to juggle work and school, appellant was forced to apply for unemployment ⁴⁸⁸ benefits on May 20,1985. DET, however, found him ineligible for benefits under the “voluntary quit” provision of article 95A, section 6(a) of the Maryland Code. The grounds for DET’s disqualification were that he voluntarily left his job at New Jersey Steel.

This determination was affirmed by both the Board and the circuit court, despite the fact that DET had granted him the waiver that permitted him to attend the Eastside retraining course and collect unemployment benefits without having to seek or accept work. I. Disqualification of Benefits Pursuant to Section 6(a) Maryland unemployment insurance law provides the circumstances under which DET must disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits: Voluntarily leaving work.—If the Executive Director finds that the individual’s unemployment is due to his leaving work voluntarily without good cause. Only a cause which is directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer may be considered good cause____ Leaving work to become self-employed, to accompany or join one’s spouse in a new locality or to attend an educational institution is neither good cause nor valid circumstance for voluntarily leaving work. MD.ANN.CODE art. 95A, § 6(a) (1985).

Educational institution is defined as ... [an] institution in which (i) participants, trainees, or students offered an organized course of study or training; and (ii) the courses of study or training are academic, technical, trade, or preparatory for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Id. § 20(u)(l). The statute plainly enunciates both general and specific grounds on which a claimant may be disqualified. In gener ⁴⁸⁹ al, DET must deny unemployment benefits if the claimant left his job without good cause, which is circumscribed to mean only cause “directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer.” Id. § 6(a).

In particular, the statute enumerates specific situations that, on their faces, do not constitute good cause. One is when the claimant voluntarily leaves work to attend an educational institution, including one that provides occupational training. The facts of this case support DET’s denial of unemployment insurance benefits to appellant pursuant to section 6(a). When we apply the particular grounds for disqualification that section 6(a) enumerates, it is patent that DET’s denial of benefits must be sustained.

Leaving work to concentrate on his studies at Eastside is precisely a ground that the Maryland legislature singled out for disqualification. Moreover, application of the general legal standard provides an independent ground for affirming DET’s determination. Under that standard, DET must not permit a claimant to receive unemployment benefits unless his reasons for leaving the job were “directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer.” MD.ANN.CODE art. 95A, § 6(a) (1985). The manifest meaning of the statute requires that a claimant’s reasons be job-related, cf. Management Personnel Services, Inc. v. Sandefur, 300 Md. 332, 342 , 478 A.2d 310 (1984); Beye v. Bureau of National Affairs, 59 Md.App. 642, 652 , 477 A.2d 1197 , cert. denied, 301 Md. 639 , 484 A.2d 274 (1984).

The Court of Appeals has explained that such reasons must “ ‘... reasonably impel the average, able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment.’ ” Board of Education of Montgomery County v. Paynter, 303 Md. 22, 37 , 491 A.2d 1186 (1985) (quoting Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Relations Commission, 277 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla.App.1973)). In the case sub judice, the reasons were clearly not job-re ⁴⁹⁰ lated. In fact, New Jersey Steel was sympathetic of and cooperative towards appellant’s educational pursuits. Berdych’s reasons for leaving his employment were purely personal.

Because his job interfered with his studies, Berdych voluntarily chose to quit his job and channel all his efforts into his studies at Eastside. As commendable as this decision may be, it constitutes, as a matter of law, valid grounds for DET’s disqualification of his benefits. By relying on related provisions of Maryland unemployment insurance law, appellant nevertheless attempts to avoid the impact of section 6(a) disqualification. First, Berdych points to the fact that DET issued to him a waiver of various eligibility requirements pursuant to article 95A, section 4(c) of the Maryland Code.

This waiver, he argues, renders the section 6(a) disqualification inapplicable to his situation. Second, appellant relies on article 95A, section 6(b) of the Maryland Code, which disqualifies claimants for benefits when they failed to apply for or accept “suitable work.” Reading this provision together with section 6(a), Berdych contends that he is excused from a disqualification under section 6(a) if he voluntarily quit an “unsuitable” job. We will address each of these statutory arguments in order.

II

Scope of Waiver Under Section b(c) The statute clearly articulates the scope of appellant’s waiver: ... nor shall such individual be denied benefits with respect to any week in which he is in training with the approval of the Executive Director by reason of the application of the provisions in this subsection, relating to availability for work and active search for work or the provisions of § 6(d) of this article relating to failure to apply for, or refusal to accept suitable work. MD.ANN.CODE art. 95A, § 4(c) (1985). This provision relieves claimants like Berdych, who have qualified for the waiver, from the obligations of actively seeking and accept ⁴⁹¹ ing suitable work as sections 4(c) and 6(d) require. Section 4(c) sets out these requirements as “conditions of eligibility,” while in section 6(d) the requirements are grounds for “disqualification for benefits.” In both cases, however, the statute speaks in terms of requirements for unemployed claimants, i.e. what an unemployed individual must do to be eligible for unemployment benefits.

The implications of this statutory scheme are clear. Section 4(c) excuses claimants from those requirements normally imposed while they are unemployed and in search of work. Only those requirements may be waived by DET. Other conditions, such as section 6(a) which disqualifies an employed claimant who voluntarily quits his or her job, do not fall within the ambit of the waiver provision.

Accordingly, a claimant possessing a valid waiver may be disqualified for voluntarily quitting his or her job without good cause. 1 ⁴⁹² Appellant assails the literal construction of section 4(c) on grounds that it penalizes industrious claimants who try to avoid the need to collect benefits while they are attending state-approved, job-training schools. It is uncontroverted that awarding appellant a waiver pursuant to section 4(c) entitled him to receive unemployment compensation without complying with several of the eligibility requirements. His problems began, however, when he attempted to hold down a temporary, full-time job while attending classes at East-side, an endeavor that ultimately proved to be too onerous. Appellant