BRITTANY N GROMIUK, Employee

MCDONALDS RESTAURANT, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own, except that it makes the following modifications:

The first two paragraphs of the appeal tribunal's FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW are deleted and the following is substituted therefor:

"The named employer, McDonalds Restaurant, is the base period employer with the largest percentage of liability. The employee worked for a separate employing unit, a casino business, until her employment was terminated on September 8, 2007 (week 36)."

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits as of week 37 of 2007, and until she is able to work and available for work in the general labor market.

Dated and mailed January 4, 2008
gromibr . umd : 164 : 1  AA 205  PC 715

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

In the petition for commission review the employee argues that, although she attends school, she is still available for full-time work. The employee states that the majority of the businesses in the area are bars and casinos, which operate during the hours she is available. The employee's argument fails. At the hearing a labor market analyst for the department testified that, given the employee's class schedule, she would be available for only twenty-two or twenty-three percent of the suitable work in her labor market area. In reaching this conclusion the labor market analyst took into consideration the fact that bars and casinos offer flexible hours, but had to look at other suitable jobs as well. Lacking any compelling reason to disagree with the assessment of the labor market expert, the commission defers to his conclusion that the employee was not available for fifty percent of the suitable work in her labor market. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

 

NOTE: The employee questions why McDonalds Restaurant is the named employer in this case, since she has not worked for that employer since June of 2006. As is reflected in the modification to the appeal tribunal decision, the named employer in a hearing addressing the question of whether a claimant is able and available will be the base period employer with the greatest percentage of liability.

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2008/01/18