Igor Yegoroff v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

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, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff Igor Yegoroff.

This is a statutory appeal brought by the claimant, Igor Yegoroff, from a determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits.   The Employment Security Board of Review certified and filed with the court the record of proceeding pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–249b.   The record indicates that the Administrator made an initial determination that the claimant was ineligible for benefits effective February 6, 2011.   His employer was SJS Corporation, Inc. The claimant filed a timely appeal on April 6, 2011, from the Administrator's initial determination.   The Appeals Referee reversed the Administrator's decision on November 29, 2011 following a de novo hearing.   The employer filed a timely appeal of the Appeals Referee's decision to the Board of Review on December 19, 2011.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–248.   The Board of Review reversed the Appeals Referee's Decision on August 1, 2012.   The claimant then filed a petition for review which was denied on October 5, 2012.   Claimant then filed a timely appeal to this court.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–249b.

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.   Although this court would like to have a new hearing with evidence, its review is limited by law.   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 not a new hearing.   The issue, therefore, is whether the decision of the Board of Review was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal in determining that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to his employer.

As the Board of Review found:

The record reveals that the claimant worked for the employer for five years and was operations manager for the last three years.   He contends that things at the end, went from “bad to worse” and that he “could not take it anymore.”   However, he tendered his resignation immediately after he and the employer had a disagreement over client billing methods.   The triggering incident to his separation was Simes' dissatisfaction with the claimant's failing to bill a client that the claimant refused to bill in advance because he found it morally objectionable.   The employer required that the claimant bill clients one quarter in advance, and the claimant refused to bill a client that he knew would soon no longer be a client.

A claimant's disapproval of the employer's business methods does not provide good cause for leaving a job unless the employer has breached the claimant's contract of hire or substantially changed the working conditions which has a significantly adverse effect upon the claimant.   Gage v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., Board Case No. 192–87–BR (3/19/87).   Simes testified that it was common practice to bill clients in advance.   He further testified that the employer's policy would provide for a refund to the client for any unused services.   While an individual may have good cause to leave the employment where the employer required him or her to perform an activity that was unlawful, dishonest, or would otherwise pose an undue risk to his or her morals, see Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31–236–22(1)(I);  Stettinger v. Railroad Salvage, Board Case No. 1206–BR–82 (1/7/83), we find that the claimant has not established that the employer's practices were unethical or illegal.

We must conclude that the claimant did not have good cause attributable to the employer to leave the job.   In so ruling, we adopt the referee's findings of fact, except that we add the following findings of fact:

11.  The claimant's January 7, 2011 resignation letter indicates that the claimant quit because he could no longer perform successfully in the organization and that he can no longer meet the ever changing expectations or cope with the increasingly demanding workload.

12. The employer suggested that the claimant take a leave of absence.

Board of Review Decision (August 1, 2012) at 4 (Rec at 137).

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 March 19, 2012 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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