When claimant expressed her desire to let another waitress work for her on April 24, she was told by her employer that he would not agree to this switch. Claimant was fired when she failed to report to work on April 24 without calling in as she was required to do. Given these facts, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the factual conclusion that claimant's unauthorized absence from work constituted misconduct and disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 731; Matter of Goldfarb [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 965). Although claimant contends that her employer gave her both days off, this merely raised a question of credibility for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged — Roberts], 113 A.D.2d 997; Matter of Rossano [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 1006). Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur.
She further testified that while she had written a letter to the vice-president dated February 28, 1990 asking for a raise, she had never spoken directly to him about it prior to the March telephone call. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant realized or should have realized that her refusal to work that Friday was placing her job in jeopardy, and that her deliberate refusal to work that day constituted misconduct, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History — Roberts], 103 A.D.2d 919; Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 731). We also note that unauthorized absences from work have been held to constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 969; Matter of Goldfarb [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 965).
Claimant admitted that he got into a dispute with his employer's vice-president regarding his request to be paid early, that he became upset and walked off the job without informing the vice-president that he was leaving. He also admitted that on the next two scheduled work days he arrived late and left without working either day. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 731; Matter of Rossano [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 1006). Claimant's contentions to the contrary concern questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged — Roberts], 113 A.D.2d 997). Casey, J.P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rejected the contention that claimants were disqualified from receiving benefits because their poor attendance constituted misconduct; these appeals by the employers followed. Dismissal of an employee for noncompliance with the employer's attendance standards, however apt, does not unequivocally warrant denial of unemployment insurance benefits on the ground of misconduct unless failure to meet those standards was "unjustified or are taken without notice to the employer" (Matter of Castro [Levine], 47 A.D.2d 698 [Greenblott, J., dissenting]; see, Matter of Bossert [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 742; Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 731). Factual determinations of this character are uniquely within the Board's province and its decision in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence, will be upheld (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 A.D.2d 934; Matter of Oxios [Catherwood], 33 A.D.2d 858). The Board concluded that Sunderland's tardiness and Wheatley's absences, despite their frequency and number, were not unjustified. Substantial evidence supports those determinations, for Sunderland's child-care problems and Wheatley's medical infirmity are clearly apparent from the record.