Opinion
October 7, 1993
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant contends that she quit her job as a telephone sales representative because she felt that the criticism of her work by her supervisor and department manager constituted harassment. Claimant also testified that she did not respect these supervisors and therefore could no longer work for them. Neither claimant's inability to get along with her supervisors nor their warnings to her with regard to her failure to meet the productivity requirements constitutes good cause for claimant to leave her job (see, Matter of Krokos [Hudacs], 184 A.D.2d 871; Matter of Fil [Hartnett], 174 A.D.2d 908; Matter of Grossman [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 853). In fact, just prior to her resignation, claimant received a positive performance evaluation which entitled her to a salary increase. To the extent that claimant contends that the work environment caused her chest pains and headaches, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that she was advised by a doctor to quit her job (see, Matter of Snapperman [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1029). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence exists to support the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found lacking in merit.
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.