Robert Baczonyi v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation.   The Administrator granted the plaintiff's initial application for benefits.   The employer appealed the decision of the Administrator.   An Appeals Referee then conducted a de novo hearing, and in a decision dated January 25, 2012, made findings of fact and reversed the decision of the Administrator, and held that the plaintiff was discharged for wilful misconduct in the course of his employment.   As a result, the plaintiff was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 21–236(a)(2)(B).  The plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the referee's decision, which was denied.   The plaintiff then appealed that decision to the Board of Review, and it rendered a decision adopting the referee's findings of fact and affirmed the referee's decision.   The plaintiff then filed this appeal.

“The power of the trial court in appeals of this kind is very limited:  ‘the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo;  it is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact, nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the [Appeals Referee or] board.’  Johnson v. Administrator, 3 Conn.App. 264, 276 (1985).   Its function is to determine only if the board acted rationally and logically or illegally and in abuse of its discretion.”   Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153 (1985).  “To the extent that an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249b, concerns findings of fact, a court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the Board of Review.”  Latina v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1999).   The plaintiff in the case at bar did not file a motion to correct any of the referee or board's factual findings per Practice Book § 22–4.   As a result, this “prevents further review of [the] facts found by the board.”  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422–23 (2003);  Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 126 Conn.App. 779, 786–87 (2011);  “[i]n the absence of a motion to correct the finding of the board, the court is bound by the board's finding.”  (Citation omitted.)   Warner v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 135 Conn.App. 84, 89 (2012).

General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(B) provides that an individual shall be ineligible for benefits “if, in the opinion of the administrator, the individual has been discharged ․ for ․ wilful misconduct in the course of the individual's employment ․” General Statutes § 31–236(a)(16) provides that:  “ ‘wilful misconduct’ means deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest, or a single knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of policy of the employer, when reasonably applied, provided such a violation is not a result of the employee's incompetence ․”

In the case at bar, the board and referee found that the plaintiff himself testified that he had to secure the pins using the lockout/tag procedure, and that he could have waited for a co-worker to assist him, but chose not to do so.   The referee and board also found that the plaintiff had received a prior warning for violating the lockout/tag procedures.   Finally the referee and board also found that the plaintiff's violation posed a significant safety hazard or substantial harm to a significant employer interest.  (See Record, pp. 38,62–3.)   The factual record is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff knew the proper safety procedure, was previously warned for violating this procedure, and that the violation of this procedure constituted a significant safety hazard.

Based upon the foregoing record and findings of fact, the board ruled that the employer discharged the plaintiff for deliberate misconduct which constituted wilful misconduct in the course of his employment.

The board is free to weigh the opposing testimony and to accept or reject the competing arguments.   Based upon the record before the court, the board's ruling is reasonable and consistent with the applicable statutes, regulations and case law.   The record supports its finding that the plaintiff was properly discharged for wilful misconduct in the course of his employment.   There was ample evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.   Accordingly, there is no basis for this court to conclude that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or otherwise abused its discretion in reaching its decision.   The decision of the board is affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Frechette, J.

Frechette, Matthew E., J.