Gayle R. Cimino v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The claimant Gayle R. Cimino, acting pro se, was denied unemployment compensation benefits by the defendant Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Commission.   The claimant appealed the decision to Referee who conducted a hearing and affirmed the decision of the Administrator.   The claimant then appealed to the Board of Review who affirmed the decision of the Referee.   Thereafter, the claimant appealed to this court.

The board found that the claimant voluntarily terminated her employment and was therefore ineligible for benefits.   This termination of employment must be viewed through the lens of the statutory mandate which is underscored by our Supreme Court's holding.   The legislature has mandated that the provisions of the unemployment compensation laws “shall be construed, interpreted and administered in such manner as to presume coverage, eligibility and nondisqualification in doubtful cases.”  General Statutes § 31-274(c).  Indeed this legislative mandate was underscored by the Supreme Court of Connecticut when the court held that in making unemployment compensation determinations, the court takes as its “starting point the fact that the act is remedial and, consequently, should be liberally construed in favor of the beneficiaries.”  Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, 238 Conn. 273, 278 (1996).

With respect to terminating one's employment because of working conditions, those conditions must have “had a significantly adverse effect upon the individual ․ and ․ the individual expressed [her] dissatisfaction regarding the working condition to [her] employer and unsuccessfully sought a remedy through those means reasonably available to her before leaving her employment ․” (emphasis supplied) Regulations § 31-236-22 (1997).

In the present case, the claimant did not take her concerns to the employer, but rather left her employment and sought compensation which was denied to her.   The claimant alleges the following:  “(A) The entire office was extremely cold to the point that you needed to wear your coat all day.   This was every day.   The ladies room had no heat, except for a small electric heater that could not be turned on because it blew fuses which would crash everyone's computer.   The bathroom was the same temperature as the outdoors.  (B) My supervisor provided me with a chair that was missing an arm.   There was just a metal piece that was where the arm should have been.  (C) There were buckets on the floor in different places to catch leaks from the ceiling.   One was in front of the fax machine, one was in front of the door to where the copier was kept.   The buckets were usually pretty full with whatever was coming from the ceiling.  (D) On Saturdays we worked from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. I was expected to sit at my desk and continue working as I ate my lunch.  (E) The kitchen where the microwave and the refrigerator were located was filthy.”

If these conditions were found to be true, it would not have been necessary for the claimant to have brought them to the attention of the employer because they were perverse.   In other words, if it was merely one or two working conditions which might have been corrected by the employer, the employee would then have been under an obligation to attempt to have the employer correct the condition.   However when the fabric of the working environment is generally in a deplorable condition, the employee should not be expected to confront the employer in the hope to have the employer correct the intolerable working conditions.

The Board of Review is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Robert I. Berdon

Judge Trial Referee

Berdon, Robert I., J.T.R.