Branch v. Department of Employment Security

Supreme Court of Vermont

Branch v. Department of Employment Security

458 A.2d 1121, 142 Vt. 609, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 440

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedApril 5, 1983

Docket82-046

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 458 A.2d 1121 (Branch v. Department of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Branch v. Department of Employment Security, 458 A.2d 1121, 142 Vt. 609, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 440 (Vt. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dr. Richard A. Herbert, a dentist, appeals from a decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board awarding unemployment benefits to the claimant-appellee, Susan Branch. We affirm.

A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. Suffice it to- *610 say that the Board found that claimant, a dental hygienist, was engaged in contract negotiations with her employer, Dr. Herbert. She would have suffered a sizeable wage reduction by accepting his final offer. The Board found that the choice of receiving reduced wages or leaving employment provided claimant with good cause for quitting attributable to the employer, within the meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A). Thus, the Board awarded her benefits.

The sole question presented for our review is whether the evidence supported the Board’s findings. Our standard of review in unemployment compensation cases is clear : we are to affirm the findings of the Board as long as there is credible evidence to support them, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Davis v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 269, 276, 438 A.2d 375, 379 (1981). We may reverse only when there is no evidence to support the Board’s decision. Healey v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 79, 82, 436 A.2d 753, 755 (1981).

Applying this standard to the facts of the instant case, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings and conclusions. The employer testified that claimant was at all times required to work a 32-hour week; claimant testified and payroll records showed that she worked an average of 24 to 26 hours per week. The employer argued that his final offer of $6.50 per hour was the same as the salary rate claimant had been earning during the first quarter of 1981; claimant provided evidence of the earnings she received and the hours she worked to show that $6.50 per hour was less than her current salary rate. The Board, as fact finder, was free to accept or reject any of this evidence. That it chose to accept the evidence of the claimant does not give us cause to reverse; we will do this only when there is no evidence to support the Board’s decision. Thus, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Dr. Richard A. Herbert, a dentist, appeals from a decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board awarding unemployment benefits to the claimant-appellee, Susan Branch. We affirm.

A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. Suffice it to- *610 say that the Board found that claimant, a dental hygienist, was engaged in contract negotiations with her employer, Dr. Herbert. She would have suffered a sizeable wage reduction by accepting his final offer. The Board found that the choice of receiving reduced wages or leaving employment provided claimant with good cause for quitting attributable to the employer, within the meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A). Thus, the Board awarded her benefits.

The sole question presented for our review is whether the evidence supported the Board’s findings. Our standard of review in unemployment compensation cases is clear : we are to affirm the findings of the Board as long as there is credible evidence to support them, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Davis v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 269, 276, 438 A.2d 375, 379 (1981). We may reverse only when there is no evidence to support the Board’s decision. Healey v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 79, 82, 436 A.2d 753, 755 (1981).

Applying this standard to the facts of the instant case, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings and conclusions. The employer testified that claimant was at all times required to work a 32-hour week; claimant testified and payroll records showed that she worked an average of 24 to 26 hours per week. The employer argued that his final offer of $6.50 per hour was the same as the salary rate claimant had been earning during the first quarter of 1981; claimant provided evidence of the earnings she received and the hours she worked to show that $6.50 per hour was less than her current salary rate. The Board, as fact finder, was free to accept or reject any of this evidence. That it chose to accept the evidence of the claimant does not give us cause to reverse; we will do this only when there is no evidence to support the Board’s decision. Thus, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 A.2d 1121, 142 Vt. 609, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-v-department-of-employment-security-vt-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack