Court Opinion

ID: 9755759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:49:30.933068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:10.642262
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
dissenting. Because the Board’s factual determinations were supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous, they survive the standard of review and should not be overcome by our view of the facts. I therefore respectfully dissent.
The fundamental issue was whether claimant had “good cause” within the meaning of § 1344(a)(2)(C) to refuse all of the three positions offered her after her three-day-a-week job totalling twenty-four hours was eliminated. The existence of good *283cause is determined according to a standard of reasonableness, what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. Shufelt v. Department of Employment & Training, 148 Vt. 163, 165, 531 A.2d 894, 896 (1987).
The Court states that the cause for claimant leaving her job was a unilateral conversion of “her part-time job . . . into a full time job.” The facts show otherwise. Claimant had agreed to a change in work schedule, and the schedule was changed from twenty-four hours during the week to twenty-four hours during the weekend for which claimant would be paid extra. Not only did claimant refuse to take that job, she turned down the offer of a full-time weekday job as well. Later she indicated she would take the weekday job, but that had been filled. The employer then offered her a suitable temporary position with the promise that she would receive permanent work when that became available. Claimant rejected that proposal. It is no wonder the Board concluded claimant was reacting unreasonably to the reasonable efforts of her employer to meet her employment needs. The employer, which “bent over backwards” to accommodate claimant, should not'be penalized.
I would affirm.