S.S. #: ***********

Employer's Name, Address & Reg. No.

E.R. #: 94-449-94

Board Case No.: 1340-BR-12

Referee Case No.: 945-BB-12

Date mailed to interested

parties: September 13, 2012

DECISION OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW

I. CASE HISTORY AND JURISDICTION

By a decision issued on June 7, 2012, the administrator ruled the claimant ineligible for unemployment benefits effective April 8, 2012. On May 11, 2012, the claimant appealed the administrator's decision to the Norwich office of the appeals division. The appeals division scheduled a hearing of the appeal for June 1, 2012, in which the claimant and employer participated. By a decision issued on June 7, 2012, Appeals Referee Elisabeth D. Borrino affirmed the administrator's ruling.

The claimant filed a timely appeal to the board of review on June 12, 2012. Acting under authority contained in General Statutes § 31-249, we have reviewed the record in this appeal, including the recording of the referee's hearing.

II. ISSUE AND PROVISION OF LAW

In support of this appeal from the referee's decision, the claimant reiterates the contentions that he raised at the referee's hearing. The claimant also alleges for the first time that he did not did not knowingly violate the employer's cell phone policy because that policy was instituted after his separation from the employer, he was hired by way of a verbal agreement, and a blue tooth and a cell phone are two different things. Additionally the claimant contends for the first time that Blackwell was not a manager on April 14, 2012, did not have the authority to enforce the cell phone policy. The issue before the board is whether the claimant was discharged for wilful misconduct pursuant to General Statutes § 31-236(a)(2)(B).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

We cannot consider new allegations that are outside of the existing record. See Walsh v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 69754 (October 14, 1992). Thus, we decline to consider the claimant's new claims at this late stage of the proceedings.

The referee made a credibility determination in favor of the employer that the claimant was aware of the policy regarding cell phone use and had received repeated warnings for violating that policy. Unless there is evidence in the record which undermines a referee's credibility determination or the referee failed to consider critical evidence or assigned evidence inappropriate weight, a credibility determination made by a referee is entitled to deference. See Kelly v. Administrator, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 033669 (August 24, 1982); Basile v. The Stanley Works, Inc., Board Case No. 272-BR-88 (8/12/88). In the case before us, there is nothing in the record which would compel us to overturn the referee's credibility determination. The claimant denied that he and Damien Fox, the employer's owner, had a meeting to discuss the new cell phone policy. He further testified that he was only warned about violating the policy once on April 5, 2012. However, both witnesses for the employer credibly testified that the claimant had been cautioned repeatedly about violating the cell phone policy.

Based on the existing record, we find that the referee has adequately addressed the claimant's contentions. Moreover, the parties have not offered any argument in support of or in opposition to the appeal which would disturb the referee's findings of fact. We further find that the findings are supported by the record, and that the conclusion reached by the referee is consistent with those findings and the provisions of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision.

IV. DISPOSITION AND ORDER

The referee's decision is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits effective April 8, 2012.

BOARD OF REVIEW

_______________________________

Lynne M. Knox, Chair,

ES Board of Review

In this decision, Board Member Elizabeth S. Wagner concurs.

LMK:ECC:lm

IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU MUST DO SO BY OCTOBER 15, 2012. SEE LAST PAGE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS.