Opinion
Dec. 31, 1974.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 1011
Albert G. DeRose, Denver, for petitioner.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado (Ex-officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado).
SMITH, Judge.
Claimant, Robert E. Gindling, Jr., left his employment as a truck driver with respondent Truck Plaza 70 of Denver in August 1973. He filed his initial claim for unemployment compensation benefits on December 17, 1973, giving as his reason for leaving his job that there had been 'too many layovers and delays costing him money and time.' A deputy of the division of employment granted claimant a full award under the provision of 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(4)(g). The employer appealed and a hearing was held before the referee on February 11, 1974. The referee reversed the decision of the deputy, holding that claimant quit because of dissatisfaction with working conditions which generally prevailed for other workers performing similar duties. See 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(6)(b)(i). Upon review, the Industrial Commission adopted the referee's finding of facts and conclusions and entered an order affirming the decision. We affirm the Commission's order.
At the hearing, claimant presented evidence in support of an additional reason he had quit, which reason was not stated in his initial claim. This evidence consisted of testimony and a signed statement that he quit because he was required to falsify certain reports in order to maintain his employment. As a result of this requirement, claimant contends that he is entitled to a full award pursuant to 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(4)(m).
The referee found, after a thorough examination of claimant's testimony and other evidence, that the Primary reason claimant quit his job was because he had to pay for his own meals while on the road and because he did not receive extra pay for unforeseen layover time. The referee acknowledged that other dissatisfactions were advanced by the claimant at the hearing, but he did not conclude that they had a substantial effect upon claimant's decision to terminate his employment.
The credibility of claimant's testimony and the referee's resolution of which reasons presented by claimant were, in fact, the motivating reasons for claimant's termination of employment are within the province of the Commission. Where there is substantial evidence to support these findings, we will not disturb them upon review. Industrial Commission v. Bennett, 166 Colo. 101, 441 P.2d 648. Here, the referee's determination that the reason claimant left his job was because of dissatisfaction with his remuneration was clearly substantiated in the record.
The claimant also asserts that the Commission erred in finding that he was not totally unemployed from January 18, 1973, to February 4, 1974. Claimant's testimony, and that of others, substantiate the finding that he was employed from January 18, 1974, to February 4, 1974, and that he is thereby ineligible for benefits during this period. We note, however, that a clerical error does appear in the referee's findings and the January 18 date should refer to 1974 instead of 1973. This error has resulted in an incorrect amount of credit showing in claimant's unemployment account. Although we affirm the order, the case will be remanded for correction of the commission's records.
Order affirmed and cause remanded.
RULAND and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.