An employee is responsible for getting to work on time. But if an employer is inflexible when that worker loses their transportation, and the person quits, that business may find itself on the losing end of a claim for unemployment insurance benefits.
That’s one of the potential implications of a recent ruling in R.I. District Court.
In March, District Court Judge Stephen C. Waluk ordered the Board of Review of the R.I. Department of Labor and Training to further investigate and reconsider the case of a Pawtucket man who had quit his job at a plastics manufacturer in North Smithfield when he could not afford to repair his vehicle.
The man, Alvin L. Morales, sought unemployment benefits after he quit his job at Polyworks LLC, where he had worked for about three years. The DLT and then the review board – an independent panel that reviews DLT decisions when either an employer or the employee appeals – found that Morales didn’t have “good cause” to quit if he cited transportation as his problem.
The judge disagreed, and, after investigating further, so did the review board. In late April, the board reversed its previous decision and awarded Morales the unemployment compensation.
In his order, Waluk wrote: “Claims based on resignations due to transportation issues ought not to be rejected categorically.”
Matthew Weldon, the new DLT director, cautioned employers not to take the wrong message from the District Court ruling and the Board of Review’s reversal of its initial decision.
‘I can’t see how an employer should be penalized because a person can’t get to his job.’
DAVID M. CHENEVERT, Rhode Island Manufacturers Association executive director
“Employers shouldn’t think that all of a sudden, everyone in Rhode Island can quit jobs because of transportation issues and they’re going to be allowed benefits. Because that’s not the case,” he said.
He said the DLT will look at all circumstances when someone applies for unemployment. “When we review cases to see if someone is eligible, we are going to consider individual facts and individual circumstances on every single case,” Weldon said.
Unemployment is a big program with federal and state requirements. “There is no blanket application of those rules for all claimants,” Weldon said.
The case started in October 2019, when Morales, then employed by Polyworks in North Smithfield, said he could not afford a $2,000 car repair. He was able to get a ride for a few days with a friend, but the arrangement didn’t last long.
Public transit wasn’t an option. His shift started at 7 a.m., a time when buses were not available to him. And an Uber ride from his home in Pawtucket would have cost $38.35, according to the Board of Review’s second decision on April 26.
In testimony before the Board of Review, Morales said he spoke to his employer but Polyworks “could offer no alternative,” including changing his shift. Morales said he considered moving closer to the facility, but the apartment rentals would have been three times the amount he was paying in Pawtucket, according to the Board of Review decision.
Morales’ attorney, Veronika Kot, a staff attorney for Rhode Island Legal Services, said when Morales was initially turned down for unemployment benefits, he had to move back to his mother’s home in Puerto Rico. He will be able to collect his benefits there.
Gregory Scorpio, chief financial officer of Providence-based G-Form LLC, which owns Polyworks, said the company had no record of Morales having mentioned car problems.
Instead, Scorpio said the employee gave two months’ notice and said he intended to move to Puerto Rico. “He voluntarily left for the reasons he gave to us. We saw no reason to allow him to claim unemployment,” Scorpio said.
The company didn’t attend the final state hearing, Scorpio said. “At this point, we’re not going to appeal the court’s decision. We followed the rule and the law at the time and believed we were making the right decision.”
Morales’ transportation problem reflects a lack of affordable housing and public transit in communities where many jobs are located, Kot said.
“Some employers in rural areas already provide transportation because they can’t get a workforce otherwise,” she said. “I think the implications, for not just employers but for the statewide community as a whole, is to think of equity issues on a larger scale.”
Unemployment is like any other insurance, she said. “These are not disposables. These are people. If they need support during unemployment that is not caused by any fault of theirs, that’s what insurance is there for,” Kot said
The decision is thought to be the first time a Rhode Island judge has considered transportation as a barrier to employment, she said.
The ruling is likely to open a “can of worms” for employers, said David M. Chenevert, executive director of the Rhode Island Manufacturers Association.
As a former employer himself, Chenevert said, he asked job applicants whether they had reliable transportation. “I can’t run a company and have people come in when they feel like it,” he said. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Aside from this case, the manufacturers association has been working with state agencies such as the DLT and the R.I. Public Transit Authority to find transportation for people who have no vehicles to access the state’s open jobs.
“We’ve got to look at the solution to this,” Chenevert said.
But he can also see the decision may harm employers whose workers quit.
“I can’t see how an employer should be penalized because a person can’t get to his job,” Chenevert said. “That does not make any sense to me.”
Employers will see an insurance rate increase if they have more workers who access unemployment benefits. But that is not the fault of the employees, Kot said.
“The unemployment system is like any other insurance,” she said. “It is not reward or punishment. It’s there to provide a safety net for people who cannot work through no fault of their own.”
Mary MacDonald is a PBN staff writer. Contact her at Macdonald@PBN.com.
