Samuele Iacono v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Samuele Iacono, has appealed the decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review (board) affirming the appeals referee's decision to affirm the administrator's denial of his unemployment benefits.   Under General Statutes § 31–249b, the Superior Court does not undertake de novo review for unemployment compensation appeals.   Rather, this court is limited to and bound by the facts found by the board and its reasonable conclusions because there has been no motion to correct those findings pursuant to Practice Book § 22–4.  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422–23, 828 A.2d 609 (2003).   The court reviews the board's decision only to determine if it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.  Guevara v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 172 Conn. 492, 495–96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).

The board found that the plaintiff was ineligible for benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to the employer, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(a)(i).   The board found that the plaintiff left his place of employment on August 9, 2010.   He confronted the vice-president over video cameras that the employer had placed in the workplace and used language indicating that he had no intent to return.   He made no contact with his employer for the remainder of the week.   On August 16, 2010, he attempted to report to work, but was advised that he had quit and was asked to leave the facility.   The plaintiff disputes whether he quit.   Under these circumstances, where there was a week-long delay in rescinding his resignation, the board concluded that the plaintiff's job separation was a voluntary quit.

This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board.   It is the province of the board, as trier of fact, to determine the credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence.  Howell v. Administrator, 174 Conn. 529, 532, 391 A.2d 165 (1978).   The board acted within the scope of its adjudicatory powers, and its decision was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.   Its decision is upheld and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.¹

The Court

Hiller, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff has represented himself throughout this process, including before this court.   The court notes that he made an articulate and impassioned argument on his own behalf..  FN1. The plaintiff has represented himself throughout this process, including before this court.   The court notes that he made an articulate and impassioned argument on his own behalf.

Hiller, Arthur A., J.