Sonia I. Justiniano v. Employment Security Appeals Division (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The claimant, Sonia I. Justiniano, appeals to this court regarding her application for unemployment compensation before the appeals referee and the affirmation of the referee's decision by the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division.

Based upon the record presented by the Board of Review, the court has made the following findings and determinations.

The Administrator granted the plaintiff-claimant's, Sonia I. Justiniano, application for benefits.  C.G.S. § 31–241.   The employer, C.W. Resources, Inc., C.G.S § 31–241, appealed the Administrator's decision.  C.G.S. § 31–242.   A Referee, John P. Ganini, heard the appeal de novo, and reversed the Administrator's decision.  C.G.S. § 31–242.   The claimant appealed the Referee's decision to the Board of Review.  C.G.S. § 31–249.   The Board of Review reviewed the appeal, adopted the Referee's findings of fact and affirmed his decision.  C.G.S. § 31–249.   The claimant appealed this decision by the Board of Review to the Superior Court.  C.G.S. § 31– 249b.

The court, in hearing this appeal, does not hear the case de novo and is bound by those facts found and reasonable conclusions reached from them.   The court may go no further than to determine whether the decision appealed is unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 321–22, 439 A.2d 1008, 1010 (1981);  Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4–5, 434 A.2d 293, 295 (1980).   It is well established that a party is barred from challenging the findings of fact of the Board of Review on appeal to court, in the absence of a timely motion to correct the findings pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book § 22–4.  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, 265 Conn. 413, 422–23, 828 A.2d 609 (2003);  Shah v. Administrator, 114 Conn.App. 170, 175–78 (2009);  Chavez v. Administrator, 44 Conn.App. 105, 106, 686 A.2d 1014 (1997);  Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn.App. 779, 784–85, 686 A.2d 134, 137 (1996).   Since plaintiff did not file a Motion to Correct with the Board within two weeks of the filing of the record in court in August 2010, as required by § 22–4, the Board's Findings of Fact are binding on the court.

Under Conn. Gen.Stat. Sec. 31–236(2)(A), an individual is ineligible for benefits if he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to his employer.   Personal reasons unrelated to working conditions, with exceptions inapplicable here, do not afford an individual good cause for quitting, although compelling.

Pursuant to Reg. Conn. Agencies, DOL., § 31–236–21(a)(1)(A) (1997), good cause attributable to the employer with respect to hours is present where the employer, during the course of employment substantially changed the hours established in the employment agreement and such change had a significantly adverse effect upon the individual.   Section § 31–236–21(a)(2) further requires that the individual expressed his dissatisfaction regarding hours to his employer and unsuccessfully sought a remedy through those means reasonably available to him before leaving his employment.   Pursuant to Reg. Conn. Agencies, DOL, § 31–236–22(a)(1)(A) (1997), good cause attributable to the employer with respect to working conditions is present when, during the course of employment, the employer substantially changed a working condition established in the employment agreement and such change had a significantly adverse effect upon the individual.   Section § 31–236–22(a)(2) requires as well that the individual expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the working condition to his employer and unsuccessfully sought a remedy through those means reasonably available to him before leaving his employment.

Here the Board of Review and Referee found that plaintiff quit to be available to accept a full-time job because she was dissatisfied with working part-time.   This is a personal reason unrelated to the working conditions of her job, not allowing eligibility for benefits.   While an employer's reduction in hours may provide good cause attributable to the employer, the employer here did not change plaintiff's hours which averaged ten hours per week.   While transfer of an employee to a different location may provide good cause attributable to the employer if the change is substantial and its impact adverse to the claimant, such as when the job is an unreasonable distance from claimant's home, plaintiff's having to take assignments in Bristol was not an unreasonable distance from her home, only some 8.8 miles or eighteen minutes from her home.

Accordingly, the plaintiff left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer, pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–236(a)(2)(A), and is ineligible for benefits.

Therefore, plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Kremski, JTR

Kremski, Julius J., J.T.R.