Gregg Lethbridge 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, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General.

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.   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.

In the recent case of Gary A. Chicatell v. Administrator Unemployment Compensation, decided August 20, 2013, the Appellate Court stated the following:  “[T]he court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Tosado v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn.App. 266, 274, 22 A.3d 675 (2011).   Further, it bears repeating that “[i]n the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, the court is not entitled to 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id., 275, citing Practice Book § 22–9(a).   So that even if this court were to disagree with the result, it is limited in its review.

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 quit his job with good cause.

As the Board of Review found:

The instant claimant contends on appeal that he quit the job due to unreasonable mandatory overtime that affected his health.   The claimant testified that the employer changed its policy in 2012 to require more overtime than usual.   Per the claimant, this additional overtime jeopardized his health and safety.   The referee notes that the claimant's pay information shows that he averaged approximately four (4) hours of overtime per week during 2011, and five (5) hours overtime per week in 2012.   The referee does not find that this constitutes a significant increase.   Of more importance is the fact that the claimant knew from his date of hire that the employer required mandatory overtime and that he remained on the job for years before leaving.   The claimant often complained to his supervisor, and Smith advised him each time that the situation would not change.   Therefore, the referee must find that by remaining on the job for so long after the employer made it clear that the situation would not change, the claimant acquiesced to the conditions he found unsuitable.   As such, the referee cannot find that this issue gives the claimant good cause attributable to the employer for leaving.   Therefore, the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A).

Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision.

Board of Review Decision (September 26, 2012) at 3 (Rec. at 51).

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 is correct.

The decision is affirmed, and the defendant's Motion for Judgment, Motion # 101.00 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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