BR-110509

This case involves when an employee has the right to quit a job based on unsafe work conditions. In her original decision--the claimant was pro se at first hearing--the Review Examiner found that the claimant was correct to refuse to do work which involved scooping raw sewage with no protective gear, but then when on to conclude that he did not make enough efforts to preserve his employment.

The Board decision does not address the issue of failure to make efforts to preserve his job, but does find that the claimant quit with good cause attributable to the employer. The Board notes in passing that it may have concluded differently had the warning the claimant refused to sign included a place to note that the he disagreed with the warning.

The claimant's first argument that this was in fact a termination and not a quit is not addressed. The claimant argued that if it was a quit, the Board should treat cases where a job poses a health and safety risk similar to the harassment cases and find that there is no duty to make efforts to preserve your job in such cases. Ultimately, the Board resolved the case on narrower grounds. 

GBLS represented the claimaint at the Board of Review.