Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

686 A.2d 134, 43 Conn. App. 779, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 578
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedDecember 17, 1996
Docket15654
StatusPublished
Cited by85 cases

This text of 686 A.2d 134 (Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 686 A.2d 134, 43 Conn. App. 779, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 578 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

HEIMAN, J.

The defendant administrator of the unemployment compensation act (administrator) appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs appeal from the determination by the [780]*780board of review of the employment security appeals division (board) that the plaintiff lacked sufficient cause to leave her job and its denial of unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the administrator asserts that the trial court improperly reviewed the board’s findings of fact for support in the evidence because, as a matter of law, the trial court was bound by the board’s findings of fact. Moreover, the administrator claims that even if the trial court had a right to review the board’s factual findings, the board’s findings of fact were supported by the evidence presented at the hearing before the appeals referee.

The following facts are pertinent to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant Greater Hartford Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (employer), as a fiscal specialist from March 22, 1993, to April 1, 1994. The duties of a fiscal specialist included payroll operations, accounts payable work and accounts receivable work. The plaintiff initially performed duties related to payroll operations and accounts receivable.

On Friday, April 1, 1994, the plaintiff was informed by her employer that another person was working on accounts receivable and that the plaintiff was to be reassigned to accounts payable. The plaintiff advised her employer that she regarded this reassignment as a demotion because accounts payable was less demanding than accounts receivable. The employer advised the plaintiff that accounts receivable required more attention to detail and more speed than she could handle. The plaintiff advised the employer that she would not return to work on the following Monday.

The plaintiff sought unemployment compensation benefits claiming that the work to which she had been reassigned was below her experience and training. The administrator determined that the plaintiff was entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits effec-[781]*781five April 3, 1994. The employer appealed the decision of the administrator to the employment security appeals division. The appeals referee affirmed the decision of the administrator on the issue of a voluntary leaving and affirmed the award of benefits.

The employer appealed the decision of the referee to the board of review. The board reviewed the record, including the tape recording of the hearing before the referee. On the basis of the record, the board determined that the employer had established at the hearing before the referee that the plaintiffs reassignment did not involve a loss in pay and that analytical work at a higher professional level was available for the plaintiff along with the accounts payable duties. It also determined that the employer had established that at the time the fiscal specialist positions were created in 1987, it was intended that the fiscal specialists would move from one function to another.

The board further determined, on the basis of the record, that the plaintiff did not establish that there was a breach of the contract of hire, that her lateral reassignment to accounts payable involved a loss of professional status, or that her reassignment was an adverse or substantial change in her working conditions. The board also determined that the employer had established that it reassigned the plaintiff to perform another function within her job description for which the employer believed she was better suited and that did not involve a change in her compensation or hours.

The board also determined, on the basis of on the record before it, that the plaintiff had failed to explore reasonable alternatives that might have preserved the employment relationship. Finally, the board concluded that the plaintiff did not have sufficient cause to leave her employment, and reversed the decision of the referee.

[782]*782The plaintiff appealed the decision of the board to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249b.1 The trial court, after reviewing a transcript of the evidence before the referee, found that the modified [783]*783findings made by the board were not supported by the evidence presented before the referee and accordingly reversed the decision of the board. This appeal follows.

The administrator’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court improperly reviewed the board’s findings of fact when, as a matter of law, the trial court was bound by the findings of fact and should not have reviewed those findings for support in the evidence. The administrator posits that the plaintiff failed to file a motion with the board to correct its findings and that the filing of such a motion is a condition precedent to pursue a challenge to the board’s findings. We agree with the administrator and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

We begin our analysis by noting that appeals from the board to the Superior Court are specifically exempted from governance by General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.2 All appeals from the board to the court are controlled by § 31-249b.3 Section 31-249b specifically provides that any finding of the board “shall be subject to correction [784]*784only to the extent provided by section 519 of the Connecticut Practice Book. . . ,”4 Practice Book § 519 (a) specifies that the trial court “does not 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. . . .”

Practice Book § 515A provides the mechanism for the correction of the board’s findings. If the appellant desires that the findings be corrected, the appellant must, within two weeks of the filing of the record in the Superior Court, file with the board a motion for correction of the findings.5

In appeals of this nature, “the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo. It is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact. Nor may it substitute its [785]*785own conclusions for those of the [board].” Guevara v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977). Rather, it is the function of the court to determine, on the record, “whether there is a logical and rational basis for the decision of the [board] or whether, in the light of the evidence, [the board] has acted illegally or in abuse of [its] discretion.” Taminski v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 168 Conn. 324, 326, 362 A.2d 868 (1975).

Here, the plaintiff failed to file a motion with the board for correction of the findings, a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board’s decision. Furthermore, in examining the board’s decision, the trial court failed to apply the correct standard of review.

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

Related

Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
12 A.3d 1067 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2011)
Human Resource A. v. Administrator, Uca, No. Cv01 038 54 09 (Dec. 18, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16223 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Mitchell v. Administrator, Uca, No. 561948 (Dec. 3, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 15589 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Vasquez v. Administrator, Uca, No. 560481 (Dec. 3, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 15585 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Spada v. Administrator, No. Cv 00 0065600 S (Sep. 18, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12077 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Mottolese v. Administrator, Uca, No. Cv 02 0187890 (Jul. 18, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8873 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Connolly v. Administrator, Uca, No. 067524 (Jul. 2, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8667 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Jsf Promotions v. Administrator, U.C.A., No. Cv 97 057 58 01 (Apr. 3, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4175 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Grasso v. Administrator, No. Cv 00 0185722 (Mar. 25, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4070-j (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Terracino v. Administrator, U.C.A., No. Cv 00-0179673 (Mar. 21, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3850 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Walsh v. Ct Unemployment Comp., No. Cv 99 0586121s (Feb. 26, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 1975 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Zichichi v. Administrator Unemp. Comp. Ac., No. Cv 00-0444408 (Feb. 1, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 1302 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Arsenault v. Administrator, Unemp. Comp., No. Cv 00-0072007s (Dec. 11, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16774 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Glassman v. Ct Unemployment Corp., No. Cv 00 059 82 38 S (Dec. 7, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16507 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Yurechko v. Administrator, No. Cv990060823s (Dec. 3, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16046 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Country Folk v. Admin., U. Comp. Act, No. Cv010184442 (Nov. 28, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15941-ga (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Powell v. Ct Administrator of Unemployment, No. Cv00-0162558s (Nov. 9, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15212 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Chanaphay v. Administrator, Unemp. Comp. Act, No. 064706 (Aug. 23, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11563 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Dudley v. Administrator, No. Cv97-0575972 (Apr. 20, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5247 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
McClellan v. Administrator, Unemployment, No. Cv 99 0169983 (Feb. 13, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2469 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
686 A.2d 134, 43 Conn. App. 779, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calnan-v-administrator-unemployment-compensation-act-connappct-1996.