Opinion
93008
Decided and Entered: May 8, 2003.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 18, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Giacomo Bauer, Lindenhurst, appellant pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On the last day of his employment as a motor vehicle driver for the United States Postal Service, claimant received a notice of removal from his supervisor, advising him that he would be discharged at the end of 30 days based upon charges that he had failed to follow instructions, deviated from his assigned route and engaged in conduct unbecoming a postal employee. Claimant responded by threatening to have someone "come down here with a machine gun and spray the place." He was immediately discharged for threatening a coworker with violence. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm.
It is well settled that the utterance of a threat to a supervisor or coworker may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Shaw [S'il Vous Plait Message Mgt. Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 302 A.D.2d 655, 753 N.Y.S.2d 772; Matter of Castro [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 909), as may the knowing violation of an employer's established policies and rules of conduct (see Matter of Hassenfratz [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 815). The proof presented at claimant's administrative hearing included his supervisor's testimony that claimant had threatened him, as well as documentary evidence of the employer's written policy of "zero tolerance" regarding threats of violence in the workplace. This was sufficient to constitute the requisite substantial evidence of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Pabon [Commissioner of Labor], 271 A.D.2d 800, 801). Although claimant denies having uttered the words that precipitated his discharge and further denies having received any notice of the employer's "zero tolerance" policy, the contrary testimony given on the employer's behalf presented issues of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Hawana [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs. — Commissioner of Labor], 285 A.D.2d 800, 801; Matter of Moore [Commissioner of Labor], 282 A.D.2d 857).
Claimant's unsupported references to an arbitrator's decision in his favor do not affect our review as the record contains no formal documentation of an arbitration proceeding. Claimant concedes, in any event, that the arbitrator's decision was rendered subsequent to the administrative decision disqualifying him from the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 813).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.