Michael W. Wood v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an employment compensation appeal to the Superior Court by the plaintiff employee, Michael W. Wood (“employee”).   The employee is appealing the June 14, 2012 decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review (“Board”) in which the Board affirmed the referee's determination that the claimant employee was ineligible to receive benefits.

The following procedural background is relevant to the appeal.   On February 6, 2011, the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act found that the employee was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.   After considering whether the employee was discharged or whether he voluntarily left his employment, the administrator concluded that the employer United Concrete Products, Inc. (“employer”) had discharged the employee from his position as a staff accountant for reasons other than wilful misconduct.

The employer appealed the decision of the administrator.   The appeal was heard by a referee, who conducted a hearing de novo, made findings of fact, modified the administrator's determination to a voluntary leaving, and reversed the decision of the administrator.   In a decision issued March 8, 2012 the referee found the employer's version of the events surrounding the employee's separation from his employment to be more convincing than that of the employee.   The referee also found, inter alia, that after working for the employer for one week, the employee did not report to work on February 21, 2012;  rather, he notified the employer by telephone that he was quitting to take a job with a former employer.   The referee concluded that as the claimant quit his job for personal reasons, he did not have good cause attributable to his employer and was disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A).

Thereafter, the employee filed a timely appeal to the Board of Review, contending that he did not quit his job.   The Board reviewed the record, including the recording of the referee's hearing, and issued a written decision on June 14, 2012.   Therein, the Board affirmed the referee's decision.   In so doing, the Board determined that the employee was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits effective February 20, 2011.

Thereafter, the employee appealed to the Superior Court.   The Board then certified the record to this court.

II

DISCUSSIONA. 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).   A party is barred from challenging the board's findings of fact on appeal to the court unless that party has timely filed a motion to correct the findings pursuant to Practice Book § 22–4.   JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422, 828 A.2d 609 (2003);  Shah v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 114 Conn.App. 170, 176, 968 A.2d 971 (2009).

B. CONCLUSION

In this case, no such motion to correct was filed, and based on the record before it, this court cannot say that the decision of the Board of Review was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

MARCIA J. GLEESON, JUDGE

Gleeson, Marcia J., J.