Robert L. Renzetti v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

The court has reviewed the record certified to it by the Board of Review, the defendant's motion for judgment, the plaintiff's pleadings, the plaintiff's objection to the motion for judgment, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff Robert L. Renzetti.

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing.   It is limited to reviewing the record certified to it by the Board of Review.   Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing.   In order for the court to review the facts, a motion to correct the findings must have been filed.   That was not done in this case, although it is clear that notice was given concerning that procedure in the decision itself sent to the plaintiff.

The court understands the claim of the plaintiff, but is by law required to treat this as a record review.   The Board of Review determined that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was discharged for wilful misconduct.

As the Board of Review found:

At the referee's hearing, the claimant consistently maintained that he did not voluntarily leave the employment.   At the administrator's predetermination hearing, the claimant stated that he had been discharged.   He also stated that he was discharged in a wage complaint he filed with the agency's Wage and Workplace Standards Division.   Therefore, the referee properly concluded that the claimant was discharged.

A claimant's walking off the job is an act of wilful misconduct unless there are mitigating circumstances or the claimant walked off the job in the midst of an emotional confrontation with the employer.   See, e.g., Martinez v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., Board Case No. 793–BR–96 (6/14/96).   In the case before us, the claimant walked off the job on December 11, 2011, after learning that his shift that day would end at 8:00 p.m. instead of 11:00 p.m. as previously scheduled.   The claimant has not established that there were mitigating circumstances, or that he walked off the job in the midst of an emotional confrontation.   We, therefore, agree with the referee that the claimant was discharged for wilful misconduct during the course of the employment.

Board of Review Decision (August 4, 2011) at 2–3 (Rec. at 43–44).

The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence.   The court finds the decision of the Board of Review on the merits follows reasonably from the facts found, and the correct application of the law to those facts.   The decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

The decision is affirmed, and the defendant's Motion for Judgment, Motion # 102.00 dated December 28, 2011 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.