STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, SC DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION

BRIGGITTE RIVERS


V. : A.A. 05-129


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, BOARD OF REVIEW :

D E C I S I O N

MOORE, J. This matter is before the Court on an appeal by the employee from a Decision of the Board of Review denying benefits, pursuant to G.L.R.I. 28-44-17, finding that the employee left without good cause. The Director had denied benefits, the Referee awarded benefits and the Board of Review denied benefits. The Court affirms that decision.
The facts are in some dispute. At the hearing before the Referee the employee testified that she was working for Home Care Services of Rhode Island as a certified nursing assistant. She called in late on August 15, 2005 and was told by Don Nagel, nursing supervisor, not to return to her usual assignment. She continued to ask for work but was not given any. In the end of August she asked to be given assignments close to her home in Pawtucket because of concerns that her license might be suspended.
Mr. Nagel testified that he does not do the scheduling. He had been told that Ms. Rivers did not have an operating vehicle and could not take cases, although the agency had work for her. He could not remember any phone conversations with Ms. Rivers.
At the hearing before the Board of Review the employer brought two additional witnesses, Holly Dawkins and Amy Jabar, schedulers for Home Care Services. Holly Dawkins testified that she spoke with Ms. Rivers on August 15. Ms. Rivers called at 8:15 a.m. when she was supposed to be at the client's home at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Dawkins told her she had sent another person to the home and that Ms. Rivers should come in to talk about a reassignment. Ms. Rivers said she was going on vacation and would come in after vacation. Ms. Dawkins spoke to Ms. Rivers again on August 29 and that Ms. Rivers indicated her car was "dying." Ms. Dawkins testified that Ms. Rivers was scheduled for vacation the week of August 15 and then later requested the next week, August 22. She stated that the agency tried to give the employee work but the employee could not accept based on issues with her car.

Mr. Nagle also testified that he had been told that Ms. Rivers was replaced in her former assignment because of poor performance and that she had trained her replacement on August 11 and 12. Ms. Dawkins testified that the family of the patient asked that Ms. Rivers be replaced because of inconsistent attendance.

The testimony before the Board of Review is uncontradicted and supports the denial of benefits. The representatives of the employer testified that Ms. Rivers had been replaced in her old assignment because of poor job performance and that she was not able to accept a new assignment because of unreliable transportation. The Board of Review found that the employee abandoned her job, that she left voluntarily without good cause.

This Court has a limited scope of review pursuant to G.L.R.I. 42-35-15(g). The Court affirms the decision of the Board of Review.