STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, SC DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION

COLLEEN M. CORCORAN :
:
:
V. : A.A. 05-124
:
:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, BOARD OF REVIEW

DECISION

GORMAN, J. In this case, the petitioner seeks reversal of an administrative decision finding her ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was terminated from her position for proved misconduct as defined in Rhode Island General Laws, § 28-44-18. The suit is filed pursuant to § 42-35-15.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
Ms. Corcoran had been working as a controller for approximately six months when she was fired on August 9, 2005 after she failed to attend an educational seminar in Massachusetts and showed up at the office instead. She applied for unemployment compensation and the claim was rejected by the Director of the Department of Labor and Training. This decision was appealed, first to a referee, and then to the Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review, both of which affirmed the director's decision.

While the referee's findings and ruling were adopted by the board, and his determination was based on Ms. Corcoran's failure to attend a prepaid training seminar, it is clear from the record that her extensive record of absenteeism contributed to the employer's decision to fire her. Although the employer did not suggest that claimant's medical problems were illusory, she would sometimes fail to report to work and not call in until that afternoon. On her final week at work, Ms. Corcoran called in sick on Wednesday, saying that she would be in the next day, but then did not come in Thursday or Friday. Monday was a holiday, and then she appeared at the office on Tuesday instead of attending the seminar.

During the six months petitioner worked for this employer, she was absent twenty percent of the time. In addition, plaintiff did not appear to be very conscientious about her job. At one juncture, Ms. Corcoran took two weeks off, without pay, in order to travel with a friend. When the trip was cancelled, she made no effort to come in to work. While the claimant was fired because she failed to attend the seminar, it appears that her history of absenteeism may have been a contributing factor.

II. DISCUSSION
This court is limited in its authority and must affirm the board's decision unless it is not supported by the facts or the administrative agency has acted arbitrarily or misconstrued the law.
Even though much of the testimony focused on what occurred on the plaintiff's final day of employment and who told whom what, and when were they told about her request that the training be postponed, the circumstances reflect that Ms. Corcoran had ample opportunity to ask the two individuals in charge of the company to reschedule her attendance at the seminar, and she never did this. Plaintiff's failure to carry out the assignment to attend a seminar that had been scheduled and paid for by her employer, suggests a type of intentional disregard for the interests of the employer covered by Section 44-28-18. See Turner v. Department of Employment and Training, Board of Review, 479 A.2d 740, 741-742 (R.I. 1984).

Based on a careful examination of the testimony and documents presented to the administrative tribunals, this court is satisfied that the record viewed in its entirety, supports the decision of the board. Therefore, the administrative decision is affirmed.