Opinion
No. 105-79
September 8, 1980
1. Unemployment Compensation — Judicial Review — Findings
Findings necessary to support Employment Security Board's conclusion must stand where supported by credible evidence.
2. Unemployment Compensation — Employment Termination — By Employee Without Good Cause
In unemployment compensation proceeding, employee's claims of cramped and noisy working conditions and low salary did not constitute good cause for voluntarily quitting where cramped quarters were necessary for easy and centralized access to records used by a number of employees, employee was a nonprofessional and her salary was commensurate with other nonprofessional salaries, and she had just received a raise. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2).
3. Unemployment Compensation — Judicial Review — Issues
Supreme court would not hold pro se unemployment compensation claimant who voluntarily quit her job and was denied benefits for quitting without good cause attributable to employer to have waived issue of verbal abuse by supervisor where issue was raised by testimony before appeals referee but was not later argued to the Employment Security Board. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a).
4. Unemployment Compensation — Judicial Review — Findings
Absence of a finding below on an issue unemployment compensation claimant denied benefits raised before appeals referee but not before Employment Security Board did not prevent supreme court from review of the issue. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2).
5. Unemployment Compensation — Employment Termination — By Employee Without Good Cause
Where unemployment compensation claimant denied benefits on ground of voluntary quit without good cause attributable to employer resigned on August 4 and supervisor whose alleged verbal abuse was a claimed reason for resigning had quit on July 1, any causal connection between the alleged abuse and the resignation of claimant was too remote to constitute good cause attributable to employer. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2).
6. Unemployment Compensation — Employment Termination — By Employee Without Good Cause
Time lapse between employee's early April dismissal from education program which was a fringe benefit and resignation from employment on August 4 raised question of whether there was a causal connection between the two for purposes of claim employee was not ineligible for benefits for a voluntary resignation without good cause attributable to employer, but where there was a possibility of reinstatement to the program the time lapse was not fatal to claim dismissal was a ground for a good cause resignation; however, where dismissal was for a voluntary failure to attend classes, it did not constitute good cause for resignation attributable to employer. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2).
Appeal from conclusion appellant left employment without good cause attributable to employer. Employment Security Board, Kerr, Chairman, presiding. Affirmed.
Robert S. Burke and Brian J. Grearson of Richard E. Davis Associates, Inc., Barre, for Plaintiff.
Brooke Pearson, Montpelier, for Defendant.
Present: Barney, C.J., Daley, Larrow, Billings and Hill, JJ.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Employment Security Board upholding the appeals referee's conclusion that claimant left her last employing unit without good cause attributable to that unit, and was therefore disqualified from benefits. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A). Claimant's grievance was based on allegations of cramped and noisy working conditions, low salary, and verbal abuse by her supervisor. In addition, claimant argues that her dismissal from a special adult education degree program (the GEPFE program), which was a fringe benefit of the job, gave her good cause to resign.
Claimant first challenges the sufficiency of the record to support the Board's conclusion that she resigned without good cause attributable to her employer. Our review of the record demonstrates that the findings necessary to the Board's conclusions are supported by credible evidence, and therefore they must stand. Kasnowski v. Department of Employment Security, 137 Vt. 380, 381, 406 A.2d 388, 389 (1979).
The Board found that claimant's cramped quarters were necessary for easy and centralized access to records used by a number of employees. It also found that claimant's salary was commensurate with other nonprofessional salaries, that she had just received a raise, and that her salary was set by a joint union-employer committee. These findings are supported by the record, and justify the conclusions that the working space and salary claims do not constitute good cause for voluntarily quitting.
The Board made no findings on the issue of verbal abuse by claimant's supervisor. Although this issue is raised by testimony before the appeals referee, it was not argued to the Board, which may account for the absence of a finding on it. Nonetheless, we are not prepared to hold this pro se claimant to a waiver on this issue, as the Department would have us do. Rather, we can pass on the substance of the issue, because the absence of a finding does not preclude review. Chittenden Trust Co. v. Maryanski, 138 Vt. 240, 243, 415 A.2d 206, 208 (1980). The record discloses that claimant resigned on August 4, 1978, but that her supervisor had previously resigned on July 1, 1978. Under these circumstances, we find that the causal connection, if any, between the alleged abusiveness of claimant's supervisor and claimant's eventual resignation is too remote to constitute good cause attributable to the employer under § 1344(a)(2)(A).
Finally, claimant argues that her dismissal from the GEPFE program warranted resignation. Here, too, the time lapse between her dismissal in early April and her resignation four months later raises the question of whether there is a causal connection. Nonetheless, because there was a continual possibility of reinstatement during this four-month period, we do not find the delay to be fatal on this issue.
The claim fails, however, because of the voluntary actions of the claimant. The second weekend of claimant's GEPFE program classes conflicted with a weekend registration seminar in Washington, D.C., which claimant would normally have been required to attend as part of her job. Claimant's supervisor offered to go in her place, and claimant was warned that missing the weekend GEPFE classes to go to Washington could result in dismissal from the program. Despite this warning, claimant voluntarily chose to go to Washington instead of attending her classes. Accordingly, even if her dismissal caused her subsequent resignation, this was not good cause attributable to her employer because it was in fact attributable to her voluntary decision to go to Washington.
Affirmed.