Ludwig Salce v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Security Board of Review denying the plaintiff unemployment benefits.   The plaintiff was employed by Conair.   Conair offered the plaintiff a severance plan which resulted in the plaintiff's retirement from the company.   The plaintiff contends that at the time he elected to retire he reasonably believed that he would be laid off if he did not accept his employer's offer.   The employer contends and the board so found that the plaintiff left suitable work voluntarily, without good cause attributable to the employer.

The board considered many facts in arriving in its decision including the following:  that Conair did not guarantee continued employment to the plaintiff or to any of the roughly 300 employees to whom it offered the severance plan;  that Conair did not eliminate the plaintiff's position post-separation;  that the employer told him that if he did not accept the offer, layoff was a possibility, not a probability;  that the plaintiff had several days within which to revoke his acceptance of the offer.

In his post-trial brief the plaintiff complains that Conair attempted improperly to influence the fact finder by making reference to his accumulated benefits receivable at retirement.   There is no evidence that such information improperly influenced either the referee or the board.

The plaintiff further claims that the fact finder “arbitrarily ignored” the employer's testimony that there was “no need” to hire a replacement for the plaintiff.   He also argues that for six months prior to introduction of the severance plan he was not given any new research and development projects to work on.   He cites this evidence to support his contention that he reasonably believed that his position would be terminated if he did not accept the offered severance plan.   The employer testified on the other hand that even after the plaintiff's departure from the company, the company continued to work on the projects that the plaintiff had been working on before the severance.

“The power of the trial court in appeals of this kind is very limited:  ‘the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo;  it is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact, nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the board.’  Johnson v. Administrator, 3 Conn.App. 264, 267 (1985).   Its function is to determine only if the board acted rationally and logically or illegally and in abuse of its discretion.  Id., 267-68” (alternate citation omitted).  Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153 (1985).

The board is free to weigh the opposing testimony and to accept or reject competing arguments.   This court is powerless to interfere with that prerogative as long as the board acted rationally, logically and legally.   There was ample evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.  P.B. Sec. 22-9(a).

The appeal is dismissed.

So Ordered

By The Court

MOTTOLESE, J.T.R.

Mottolese, A. William, J.T.R.