Yamisaliz Jimenez v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an unemployment compensation appeal by the employee, Yamisaliz Jimenez (“claimant”), from a decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

On July 5, 2011, the defendant Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act (“the Administrator”) granted the claimant's application for benefits.   The Administrator found that the employer, Taco Bell of America, Inc., had discharged the claimant for reasons other than willful misconduct in the course of her employment.

The employer appealed the decision of the Administrator.   On September 9, 2011, the Referee conducted a hearing de novo;  the claimant did not appear for the hearing.   On September 12, 2011 the Referee made findings of fact, and reversed the decision of the Administrator.   On September 20, 2011, the claimant appealed the Referee's decision to the Board of Review.   On November 4, 2011, the Board found an absence of good cause for claimant's failure to attend the Referee's hearing, adopted the Referee's findings of fact, and affirmed the Referee's decision.   On January 4, 2012, the claimant filed the present appeal with the court.   The record of proceedings was filed in court on April 16, 2012.   The Administrator's brief was filed on June 27, 2012.   A motion to correct the Board of Review's findings, as permitted by Practice Book § 22–4, has not been filed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Under General Statutes § 31–249b, the court does not undertake a de novo review of unemployment compensation appeals from the employment security board of review and is bound by those facts found by the board and the reasonable conclusions it reached therefrom.   The court may go no further than to determine whether the decision appealed from is unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Burnham v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 184 Conn. 317, 321–22, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981).

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, this court cannot “retry the facts or hear evidence.   It considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether ․ there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.  [The court] cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.”  Practice Book § 22–9.  “[A] [claimant's] failure to file a timely motion for correction of the board's findings in accordance with [Practice Book] § 22–4 prevents further review of those facts found by the board.”  Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 126 Conn.App. 779, 786, 12 A.3d 1067 (2011).

In the present case, the Board of Review adopted the factual findings of the appeals referee with regard to the reasons for the employee's discharge from employment.   Since claimant did not file a motion to correct with the board within two weeks of the filing of the record with the court, as required by § 22–4, the board's findings are binding on this court.   Therefore, the court reviews the decision only to determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusions of law, or whether the Board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.

B. Analysis

Pursuant to Conn. Gen Stat. § 31–236(a)(2)(A) an individual is ineligible for benefits if he or she voluntarily left suitable employment without good cause attributable to his employer.   The Referee found the claimant quit her job when she abandoned her position by failing to report to work.   This court cannot disturb the finding that the claimant left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause related to the employer.

There is ample evidence in the record to support the factual findings of the Appeals Referee, as adopted by the Board of Review and the Board of Review's conclusion of law that the claimant is ineligible for benefits under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–236(a)(2)(A) is not unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.

The decision of the Board of Review is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.   Memorandum mailed to all parties and report judicial decisions.

Judge:  DAVID M SHERIDAN

Sheridan, David M., J.