City of Waterbury v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Superior Court in hearing an unemployment compensation appeal does not hear the case de novo.   The function of the court is to sit as an appellate court in reviewing the record certified to it by the Board of Review.   United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381, 385, 551 A.2d 724 (1988), Finkenstein v. Administrator, 192 Conn. 104, 112, 470 A.2d 1196 (1984).   To the extent that the issue involves an application of a statute to the actual circumstances of the case, it requires an appropriate finding of fact at the administrative level.  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, supra;  cited with approval in Acro Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, 25 Conn.App. 130, 593 A.2d 154 (1991).

The court is bound by the findings of fact and reasonable conclusions of the Board of Review in determining whether the Board's decision is arbitrary unreasonable, or illegal.   Even where the Board's finding and decision is not as clear and definite on the question as is desirable, they must stand if there is substantial evidence in the record that its conclusions are not so unreasonable or illegal as to warrant judicial interference.  Howell v. Administrator, 174 Conn. 529, 533, 391 A.2d 165 (1978).   The court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the Board.  Johnson v. Administrator, 3 Conn.App. 264, 267, 487 A.2d 565 (1985).

This case is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation benefits.   The plaintiff in this matter is the City of Waterbury who was the employer of Michael Angurio, a carpentry foreman who worked for the education department.   On or about April 5, 2010 the said Angurio was placed on administrative leave as a result of accusations of willful misconduct relating to his performance as a supervisor.

The procedural history of this file reveals a somewhat anomalous situation in which the Administrator grants benefits to the claimant, which in turn is reversed by the Appeals referee, who in turn was reversed by the Board of Review (The Board) on October 1, 2012.

The Board held that the employer had not met its burden of proof in demonstrating that the claimant had been dismissed for willful misconduct.   The employer (Plaintiff) then filed an appeal to this court on October 29, 2012 under Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b.   The employer also filed a timely motion to correct the findings of fact without objection on March 28, 2013.   Additional Certification of Record (May 17, 2013).   The Board ruled on the motion on May 15, 2013 reaffirming its factual findings by denying the various requests of the plaintiff to correct certain factual findings made by the referee.   Those were specifically Findings of Fact # 11 & 13 as to what was Angurio's scope of responsibility concerning the installation of a certain large window at one of the City's schools.

Further, The Board denied and changed certain other findings by the referee regarding missing tools and a truck's GPS assigned to Angurio for work purposes.

The standard of review by the Court is well established, and specifically articulated by the defendant administrator in its memorandum of Law and reply brief.  Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b and Practice Book § 22–9 circumscribe the scope of the Court's authority to reverse or modify The Board's ultimate findings and decision.   To the extent that The Board has modified or amended the referee's particular findings is not necessarily grounds for reversing The Board's conclusions unless found to be unreasonable, arbitrary or contrary to law or an abuse of discretion.  (Internal quotations omitted.)  Latina v. Adm., Unemployment Comp. Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1999).

However, at this stage after argument and review of the available record and briefs filed by the respective parties, the Court finds that The Board's position is unreasonable and arbitrary in light of its subsequent amendments to the referee's findings.   Therefore, further fact-finding is necessary in order to justify and substantiate The Board's conclusions.   The Court orders The Board of Appeals to remand the case to a new referee for further proceedings in order to resolve apparent conflicts concerning the actions or inactions of the applicant Angurio.   The findings of the said referee as adopted by The Board will be considered a final disposition under Practice Book § 22–9(a).

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.