In the Matter of the Claim of GHEORGHE TANASA, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
Calendar Date: June 11, 2018
Gheorghe Tanasa, Las Vegas, Nevada, appellant pro se.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board,
filed April 26, 2017, which denied claimant's application
to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.
decision filed January 27, 2017, the Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive
unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left
his employment as a restaurant and banquet server without
good cause. Claimant applied to the Board to reopen and
reconsider its decision within 30 days and, by decision filed
April 26, 2017, the Board denied claimant's application.
Claimant appeals. 
affirm. Whether a person has left employment without good
cause "is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and
its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if
supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of
Kolesar [Nuwer's Auto Parts Inc.-Commissioner of
Labor ], 161 A.D.3d 1467, 1468 ). Claimant worked
as both a banquet and a restaurant server in the
employer's hotel resort. On May 30, 2016, claimant was
working as a restaurant server and got into an argument with
a coworker after claimant announced that he was leaving work
early; claimant thereafter left work before the end of his
shift without obtaining the required permission from his
supervisor, who advised claimant that he had work to complete
during that shift. The supervisor and matred' reminded
claimant that he could not be the first server to leave early
that night under the employer's rule governing the
priority with which servers are permitted to leave early.
Claimant told the supervisor that he was "quitting"
and "not coming back," left the premises and then
returned and turned in his computer access card assigned to
him as a restaurant server. Claimant was not included on the
next work schedule and was later informed that, as he had
quit his job, he was not permitted to return.
that substantial evidence supports the Board's
determination that claimant voluntarily quit his job with the
employer without good cause when continuing work was
available (see Matter of McClammy [STCR Bus. Sys.,
Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 153 A.D.3d 1550, 1551
). Claimant quit because he was not permitted to leave
early. His dissatisfaction with the employer's policy, of
which he was aware, or with his work schedule did not
constitute good cause for quitting (see id.;
Matter of Davis [Commissioner of Labor ], 148 A.D.3d
1367, 1368 ). Given that claimant told his supervisor
that he was quitting, without qualification, and was not
returning, turned in his computer access card and left
against the supervisor's directive and the employer's
policy, the Board rationally concluded that he had abandoned
his employment in its entirety, rejecting his claim that he
only intended to quit his restaurant server position and not
his banquet server position. Although claimant asserted that
the matred' granted him permission to leave early, the
matred' denied doing so, and other employer witnesses
testified that only the restaurant supervisor had the
authority to do so when present, as she was on the night in
issue here. To that end, "[a]ny conflict in the
testimony regarding the circumstances leading to
claimant's departure created a credibility issue for the
Board to resolve" (Matter of Maldonado [Commissioner
of Labor], 150 A.D.3d 1512, 1513 ) and, as the
Board's factual decision is supported by substantial
evidence, it will not be disturbed.
"[w]hether to grant an application to reopen and
reconsider a prior decision is a matter committed to the
Board's discretion and, absent an abuse of that
discretion, the Board's decision will not be
disturbed" (Matter of Basil [Commissioner or
Labor], 153 A.D.3d 1547, 1547 ). Upon review of
the record and claimant's application, we discern no
basis upon which to conclude that the Board abused its
discretion in denying that application.
P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
 Given that claimant applied to reopen the
initial, January 2017 Board decision within 30 days, the
merits of that determination are properly before this Court
(see Matter of Cieszkowska [Commissioner of Labor],
155 A.D.3d 1502, 1502 ). While the record reflects that
claimant filed subsequent applications to reopen Board
decisions, which the Board denied in later decisions, no
notices of appeal ...