Peters, J.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the employment security board of review has a statutory obligation to provide unemployment compensation claimants with free transcripts of the proceedings before an appeals referee whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review.
The plaintiffs, Brian Berger, Paul Maciejak and Kathleen Crawforth, claimed unemployment compensation benefits, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-240, and each was determined, after a hearing before an appeals referee, to be ineligible for the benefits claimed. Each plaintiff appealed the referee’s decision, and each requested a free transcript of the hearing before the referee, which requests were denied. The plaintiffs then initiated this action against the defendants, the members of the employment security board of review (board of review), claiming that the defendants’ refusal to pro[583]*583vide them with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings on request violated General Statutes § 31-272 (b).1 The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and relief in the nature of mandamus compelling the defendants to provide them, and others similarly situated, with (1) free transcripts of their hearings before appeals referees; and (2) notice of their right to such free transcripts upon the filing of an appeal to the board of review.2 The trial court, Mancini, J., denied the plaintiffs’ requests for relief, holding that the defendants had no statutory obligation to provide the plaintiffs with free transcripts for use in preparing administrative appeals. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. We find no error.
General Statutes §§ 31-240 through 31-249f set forth the procedures for determining claims for unemployment compensation benefits. Claims are initially pre[584]*584sented to an examiner who makes an administrative determination of the claimant’s eligibility. General Statutes § 31-241.3 Both the claimant and the employer [585]*585have a right to appeal the examiner’s decision to an employment security appeals referee, who conducts a hearing de novo and renders a decision accompanied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law. General Statutes § 31-242.4 Any party, including the administrator, may then appeal the referee’s decision to the board of review. General Statutes § 31-249.5 An appeal [586]*586to the board of review “shall be heard on the record of the hearing before the referee, provided if the ends of justice so require, the board may hear additional evidence or testimony.” Id.6 If the board of review modifies the referee’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, it must file its own written findings and conclusions. General Statutes § 31-249. After the parties have exhausted this administrative process, General Statutes § 31-249b7 provides for judicial review of the decisions of the board of review by the Superior Court.
[587]*587The trial court’s memorandum of decision and the parties’ stipulation reveal the following facts. The primary evidentiary hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits is before the appeals referee. Those proceedings are informal and are recorded on tape cassette. The defendants do not provide claimants with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings. The tapes are not routinely transcribed unless there is an appeal to the Superior Court. The defendants will prepare a written transcript of a referee’s hearing at a claimant’s request, for use in preparing an appeal to the board of review, provided the claimant is willing to pay a transcription fee of $1.25 per page. The defendants will provide a claimant with a duplicate tape cassette, on request, for a fee of $5. The defendants do not routinely give notice to claimants of the availability of either tapes or transcripts. The defendants will provide free tapes or transcripts to indigent claimants when ordered by a court to do so.8 At [588]*588oral argument the defendants represented that, while it is their practice to permit any claimant, whether indigent or not, to listen, on request, to the defendants’ copy of the tape, at a time and place convenient to the parties, they do not routinely give notice of this practice.9
At the outset it is useful to set forth the issues that are not now before us. The plaintiffs have raised no claim that the defendants’ failure to provide them with written transcripts violates any provision of either the federal or state constitution. They have not alleged that the defendants have effectively prevented them from presenting their appeals to the board of review by denying them all access to the record of the factfinding hearings. They never sought access to the hearing tapes and raised no issue with respect to the tapes’ availability. Further, the plaintiffs never claimed to be indigent, nor did they raise any claims concerning the rights of indigents. Finally, although the plaintiffs claimed in the trial court and in this court that the Freedom of Information Act compelled the defendants to provide them with written transcripts, the plaintiffs never filed complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission and did not plead any Freedom of Information Act violation in their complaint. There is, therefore, no issue properly before us with respect to the Freedom of Information Act.
[589]*589The plaintiffs’ only claim on this appeal is that General Statutes § 31-244a,10 which provides that “[a] record shall be prepared of all testimony and proceedings at any hearing before a referee . . . but need not be transcribed unless an appeal is taken from the referee’s or board’s decision,” mandates the preparation of a written transcript whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review, and that General Statutes § 31-272 (b) (1), which prohibits the taxing of “any fees or costs against any employee or employer in any proceeding regarding claims for benefits under this chapter,” requires the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with written transcripts free of charge, regardless of their ability to pay. We disagree.
In examining the statutory requirements concerning the transcription of unemployment compensation hearing records, we must consider the statutory scheme as a whole, giving meaning to every section, and assuming no word or phrase to be superfluous. State v. Freedom of Information Commission, 184 Conn. 102, 107, 441 A.2d 53 (1981); Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 14, 434 A.2d 293 (1980). Where, as here, more than one statute is involved, we presume that the legislature intended them to be read together to create a harmonious body of law; Vartuli v. Sotire, 192 Conn. 353, 362, 472 A.2d 336 (1984); [590]*590McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 192 Conn. 558, 563 n.7, 473 A.2d 1185
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peters, J.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the employment security board of review has a statutory obligation to provide unemployment compensation claimants with free transcripts of the proceedings before an appeals referee whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review.
The plaintiffs, Brian Berger, Paul Maciejak and Kathleen Crawforth, claimed unemployment compensation benefits, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-240, and each was determined, after a hearing before an appeals referee, to be ineligible for the benefits claimed. Each plaintiff appealed the referee’s decision, and each requested a free transcript of the hearing before the referee, which requests were denied. The plaintiffs then initiated this action against the defendants, the members of the employment security board of review (board of review), claiming that the defendants’ refusal to pro[583]*583vide them with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings on request violated General Statutes § 31-272 (b).1 The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and relief in the nature of mandamus compelling the defendants to provide them, and others similarly situated, with (1) free transcripts of their hearings before appeals referees; and (2) notice of their right to such free transcripts upon the filing of an appeal to the board of review.2 The trial court, Mancini, J., denied the plaintiffs’ requests for relief, holding that the defendants had no statutory obligation to provide the plaintiffs with free transcripts for use in preparing administrative appeals. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. We find no error.
General Statutes §§ 31-240 through 31-249f set forth the procedures for determining claims for unemployment compensation benefits. Claims are initially pre[584]*584sented to an examiner who makes an administrative determination of the claimant’s eligibility. General Statutes § 31-241.3 Both the claimant and the employer [585]*585have a right to appeal the examiner’s decision to an employment security appeals referee, who conducts a hearing de novo and renders a decision accompanied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law. General Statutes § 31-242.4 Any party, including the administrator, may then appeal the referee’s decision to the board of review. General Statutes § 31-249.5 An appeal [586]*586to the board of review “shall be heard on the record of the hearing before the referee, provided if the ends of justice so require, the board may hear additional evidence or testimony.” Id.6 If the board of review modifies the referee’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, it must file its own written findings and conclusions. General Statutes § 31-249. After the parties have exhausted this administrative process, General Statutes § 31-249b7 provides for judicial review of the decisions of the board of review by the Superior Court.
[587]*587The trial court’s memorandum of decision and the parties’ stipulation reveal the following facts. The primary evidentiary hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits is before the appeals referee. Those proceedings are informal and are recorded on tape cassette. The defendants do not provide claimants with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings. The tapes are not routinely transcribed unless there is an appeal to the Superior Court. The defendants will prepare a written transcript of a referee’s hearing at a claimant’s request, for use in preparing an appeal to the board of review, provided the claimant is willing to pay a transcription fee of $1.25 per page. The defendants will provide a claimant with a duplicate tape cassette, on request, for a fee of $5. The defendants do not routinely give notice to claimants of the availability of either tapes or transcripts. The defendants will provide free tapes or transcripts to indigent claimants when ordered by a court to do so.8 At [588]*588oral argument the defendants represented that, while it is their practice to permit any claimant, whether indigent or not, to listen, on request, to the defendants’ copy of the tape, at a time and place convenient to the parties, they do not routinely give notice of this practice.9
At the outset it is useful to set forth the issues that are not now before us. The plaintiffs have raised no claim that the defendants’ failure to provide them with written transcripts violates any provision of either the federal or state constitution. They have not alleged that the defendants have effectively prevented them from presenting their appeals to the board of review by denying them all access to the record of the factfinding hearings. They never sought access to the hearing tapes and raised no issue with respect to the tapes’ availability. Further, the plaintiffs never claimed to be indigent, nor did they raise any claims concerning the rights of indigents. Finally, although the plaintiffs claimed in the trial court and in this court that the Freedom of Information Act compelled the defendants to provide them with written transcripts, the plaintiffs never filed complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission and did not plead any Freedom of Information Act violation in their complaint. There is, therefore, no issue properly before us with respect to the Freedom of Information Act.
[589]*589The plaintiffs’ only claim on this appeal is that General Statutes § 31-244a,10 which provides that “[a] record shall be prepared of all testimony and proceedings at any hearing before a referee . . . but need not be transcribed unless an appeal is taken from the referee’s or board’s decision,” mandates the preparation of a written transcript whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review, and that General Statutes § 31-272 (b) (1), which prohibits the taxing of “any fees or costs against any employee or employer in any proceeding regarding claims for benefits under this chapter,” requires the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with written transcripts free of charge, regardless of their ability to pay. We disagree.
In examining the statutory requirements concerning the transcription of unemployment compensation hearing records, we must consider the statutory scheme as a whole, giving meaning to every section, and assuming no word or phrase to be superfluous. State v. Freedom of Information Commission, 184 Conn. 102, 107, 441 A.2d 53 (1981); Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 14, 434 A.2d 293 (1980). Where, as here, more than one statute is involved, we presume that the legislature intended them to be read together to create a harmonious body of law; Vartuli v. Sotire, 192 Conn. 353, 362, 472 A.2d 336 (1984); [590]*590McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 192 Conn. 558, 563 n.7, 473 A.2d 1185 (1984); and we construe the statutes, if possible, to avoid conflict between them. State v. West, 192 Conn. 488, 494, 472 A.2d 775 (1984); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. v. Mike, 184 Conn. 352, 362, 439 A.2d 1026 (1981).
General Statutes § 31-244a, on which the plaintiffs rely, requires the defendants to maintain a record of the proceedings before an appeals referee and before the board of review. The statute provides further that the record “need not be transcribed unless an appeal is taken from the referee’s or board’s decision, as the case may be.” General Statutes § 31-244a. The statute does not expressly require transcription of the record upon the filing of an appeal, either to the board of review or to the Superior Court. General Statutes § 31-249b,11 which governs judicial review of the board of review’s decisions, provides in part that “[ufpon request of the court, the board shall (1) in cases in which its decision was rendered on the record of such hearing before the referee, prepare and verify to the court a transcript of such hearing before the referee; and (2) in cases in which its decision was rendered on the record of its own evidentiary hearing, provide and verify to the court a transcript of such hearing of the board.” (Emphasis added.)
If the plaintiffs were correct in their construction of § 31-244a that the filing of an appeal to the board of review automatically triggers the requirement that the referee’s hearing record be transcribed, there would be no need for the provision of § 31-249b that, on the request of the court, the board of review shall prepare a transcript of the proceedings before the referee. Under the plaintiffs’ construction, that transcript would have been prepared long before, at the last stage of the administrative process. We decline to adopt a recon[591]*591struction of § 31-244a which renders meaningless the requirement of § 31-249b (1). We hold, therefore, that § 31-244a merely authorizes the preparation of unemployment compensation hearing transcripts at the administrative appeal stage. It does not, as the plaintiffs contend, require such transcripts to be prepared at that stage as a matter of course.
Our conclusion that the defendants have no statutory obligation to prepare transcripts of proceedings before a referee serves to foreclose the plaintiffs’ asserted right to receive such transcripts free of charge. Once it is determined that such transcripts are not a prerequisite to administrative review, the plaintiffs have no claim that they are improperly being assessed “costs or fees” in violation of § 31-272 (b). Although in their brief the plaintiffs appear to assert that this statute affords them an independent right to free transcripts, at oral argument it was conceded that the plaintiffs claimed a right to free transcripts under § 31-272 (b) only “if there must be a transcript under [§ 31-]244a.”
The trial court, therefore, correctly concluded that there is no statutory requirement that the defendants provide the plaintiffs with free transcripts of their hearings before appeals referees.
There is no error.