99
January 2020
union or would interfere with his joining or retaining membership in any labor organization;
18
or
(2) there is a strike, lockout, or other industrial controversy in the establishment in which the
employment is offered; or (3) the employment is at an unreasonable distance from his residence,
or travel to and from the place of employment involves expense substantially greater than that
required in his former employment unless the expense is provided for; or (4) the wages or
compensation or hours or conditions offered are substantially less favorable to the claimant than
those prevailing for similar work in the locality, or are such as are likely to depress wages or
working conditions; or (5) where the claimant has historically and is still seeking part-time work
and the offer of employment is not comparable to his or her historical part-time work.
19
TRAVEL TIME/COSTS
The Board and Court have determined that generally travel of over one hour by private
transportation or one and one-half hours by public transportation for employment is
unreasonable.
20
In metropolitan areas, it has been held that travel of one and one-half hours is
reasonable.
21
A claimant is not required to accept employment if the travel time is in excess of
those parameters. This is true even if the claimant had previously been employed at a location
more than that distance from his or her home. However, where an employer has a policy or
18
Appeal Board No. 571597 (“Further, the owner acknowledged that union members who he had hired had either lost
seniority or otherwise had their union membership adversely affected. Labor Law §593(2)(a) specifically provides that
no claimant will be disqualified for refusing an offer which would interfere with the claimant's right to join or retain
membership in any labor organization. Hence, the claimant, an apprentice in a union program, would have had good
cause to refuse an offer of employment from this objecting employer.”); but see, Matter of Russell, 33 A.D.2d 592 (3d
Dep’t 1969) (Refusal of employment because it would have required claimant to join a union was held to be without
good cause).
19
Labor Law §596(5) “Part time work. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, a claimant who for reasons
personal to himself or herself is unable or unwilling to work full time and who customarily worked less than the full time
prevailing in his or her place of employment for a majority of the weeks worked during the applicable base period, shall
not be denied unemployment insurance solely because the claimant is only seeking part time work. For the purposes
of this subdivision, “seeking part time work” shall mean the claimant is willing to work for a number of hours per week
that are comparable to the claimant’s part time work during the majority of the base period.” See also, Appeal Board
No. 590522 (“While the claimant had worked full-time in the past, that was not his current job market (Appeal Board
Nos. 559485, 543326). We find that the claimant's labor market is that of part-time work. The claimant, therefore, could
refuse this [full-time] job with impunity and we need not reach his reasons for doing so (Appeal Board No. 543326)”).
20
Appeal Board Nos. 573470, 570998 and 549742, (commute by private transportation, such as a car, of more than
one hour is considered unreasonable); Appeal Board No. 546393 (commute by public transportation of 95 minutes
found to be unreasonable); see also, Unemployment Insurance Claimant Handbook, October 2016 edition, pg. 28 (“You
must be willing to travel a reasonable distance to get to work. Generally, reasonable distance is travel of one hour by
private transportation or one-and one-half hours by public transportation”).
21
Matter of Ruggilo, 51 A.D.2d 838 (3d Dep’t 1976) (travel time to place of employment of up to 90 minutes each way
is not excessive in metropolitan areas).