Claimant briefly worked at a supermarket as a part-time bakery store clerk. He left his job when he was not given full-time benefits as allegedly promised by his employer. When certifying for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant represented that he was unemployed due to a lack of work. After claimant had collected benefits in the amount of $1,550, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that he was disqualified from receiving them because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The Board further charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and imposed a forfeiture penalty. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that general dissatisfaction with working conditions is not good cause for leaving one's employment ( see Matter of Scirri [Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 806; Matter of Murray [Team Jo-Ann, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor, 41 AD3d 1023, 1023). Here, evidence was adduced at the hearing that claimant was dissatisfied with the employer's failure to provide him with full-time benefits and that he left his job as a result. While claimant testified that the general manager terminated him because he was tired of listening to claimant complain about the lack of full-time benefits, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Seiglar [Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1118, 1118; Matter of Feierman [Commissioner of Labor], 50 AD3d 1424, 1424). Moreover, inasmuch as claimant falsely represented when applying for benefits that he lost his job due to a lack of work, the Board was warranted in charging him with a recoverable overpayment ( see Labor Law § 597; Matter of Ricciardi [Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1039, 1039-1040). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb its decision.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.