BR-1 #10 S T A T E O F C O N N E C T I C U T
Department of Labor
Employment Security Appeals Division
Board of Review
200 Folly Brook Blvd.
Wethersfield, CT 06l09
IMPORTANTE - TENGA ESTO TRADUCIDO
INMEDIATAMENTE - TIEMPO LIMITADO PARA APELAR
*****Board Case No. and Claimant's Name:
92-BR-91
RONALD J. PERKIS Appealed
from Referee's determination Case No:
SS# ***********2. Date appeal
filed: January 14, 1991
Employer's Name, Address & Reg. No.
3. Appeal filed by: Claimant
CONNECTOR CO.
Astrex Inc.
143 Leeder Hill Dr. 4. Date mailed to interested
Hamden, CT. 06517 parties: February 27, 1991
ER# 91-177-04
Provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes involved:
Section 31-236(a)(2)(A)
CASE HISTORY - SOURCE OF APPEAL:
The Administrator ruled the claimant eligible for unemployment benefits for the week ending June 9, 1990, and notified the employer of its chargeability on June 27, 1990.
The employer appealed the Administrator's decision on July 6, 1990.
Appeals Referee Grace J. Morrell reversed the Administrator's ruling by a decision issued on January 8, 1991.
The claimant appealed the Referee's decision to the Board of Review on January 14, 1991.
CASE NO. 92-BR-91 Page 2
Acting under authority contained in Section 31-249 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Board of Review has reviewed the record in this appeal, including the tape recording of the Referee's hearing.
In support of this appeal from the Referee's decision, the appellant contends that he voluntarily left his employment with sufficient work-connected cause; that he was never told that overtime during inventory time was mandatory but had always been asked if he could work the overtime; and that the employer's threat to change his scheduled vacation because of his refusal to work overtime was unreasonable. The record shows, however, that the claimant voluntarily left his employment because he believed that the employer was going to disallow his scheduled vacation because of his refusal to work overtime. The claimant has not established that the mandatory overtime was a change in the conditions of his employment. Furthermore, the claimant did not attempt to seek any assistance from any higher authority to resolve his conflict with his immediate supervisor and did not avail himself to other alternatives which may have preserved his employment prior to quitting. Therefore, based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing before the Referee, we conclude that the claimant/appellant has not met his burden of proving that he had sufficient cause for leaving his employment when he did.
The Board finds that the contention offered by the appellant in support of the appeal does not materially controvert the Referee's findings of fact and that those findings are supported by the record. The Board of Review further finds that the conclusion reached by the Referee is legally consistent with those findings and the provisions of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act governing the issue presented by the appeal. Accordingly, the Board of Review adopts the Referee's findings of fact and decision as its own.
The decision of the Referee is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
BOARD OF REVIEW
____________________________
Bennett Pudlin, Chairman
In this decision Board member Glenn Williams concurs.
BP:sm
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU MUST DO SO BY APRIL 1, 1991. SEE LAST PAGE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS.