Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, filed August 18, 2011, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Calendar Date: October 29, 2012
Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ.
Claimant worked as a child care supervisor at a residential facility for emotionally disturbed teenagers. She experienced difficulties with her supervisor and believed that her authority was being undermined. She advised her supervisor of her concerns in writing and requested a meeting. The following month, she met with her supervisor and other representatives of the employer at which time the employer agreed to further investigate her concerns. Claimant, however, tendered her resignation at the conclusion of the meeting. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was initially disqualified from receiving them on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. An Administrative Law Judge subsequently ruled that claimant was entitled to receive benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board later reversed this decision. The Board adhered to its decision upon reconsideration, and claimant now appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that the inability to get along with a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment (see Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1123, 1124 ; Matter of Logghe [BWIA W. Indies Airways Ltd.--Commissioner of Labor], 39 AD3d 1003, 1004 ). Here, claimant was having problems interacting with her supervisor and did not like the manner in which the supervisor portrayed her to other employees. Although claimant's concerns were communicated to other representatives of the employer, she did not give them an opportunity to fully investigate and take corrective action before resigning from her position. Thus, she failed to take reasonable steps to protect her employment (see Matter of Woodcheke [Commissioner of Labor], 53 AD3d 1011, 1012 ; Matter of Roman [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1067, 1068 ). Under the circumstances presented, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons.
Peters, P.J., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...