STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

PROVIDENCE, SC DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION

GARY G. DeBEAULIEU

VS. : A.A. NO. 00-108

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, BOARD OF REVIEW :

This cause came on before Cenerini, J. on Administrative Appeal, and upon review of the record and memoranda of counsel, and a decision having been rendered, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The decision of the Board is hereby affirmed.

Dated at Providence, Rhode Island, this day of , 2001.

ENTER: BY ORDER:

___________________________ __________________________

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

PROVIDENCE, SC DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION

GARY DeBEAULIEU 

V. : A.A. 00-108

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, BOARD OF REVIEW :

D E C I S I O N

CENERINI, J. This matter is before the Court on the complaint of Gary DeBeaulieu, filed pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 42-35-15, seeking judicial review of a final decision rendered by the respondent, Board of Review, Department of Labor and Training, which upheld the finding of the Referee that the claimant, Gary DeBeaulieu was not entitled to receive employment security benefits.

The travel of this case is as follows. The claimant last worked on February 11, 2000. He filed a claim for Employment Security benefits on February 17, 2000. In a decision dated March 27, 2000, the Director determined the claimant failed to meet the requirements of Rule 17, as promulgated under Section 28-44-12 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act. The claimant filed a timely appeal. A hearing on this appeal was held on April 18, 2000, at which time the claimant appeared and testified. On April 19, 2000, the Referee issued a decision in which he sustained the determination of the Director. The claimant appealed to the Board of Review.

The Board on May 11, 2000 determined that the Referee's decision was a proper adjudication of the facts that the claimant had failed without good cause to demonstrate his availability for work through utilization of the telephone reporting services established by the Director in accordance Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training Rule 17. Thereafter, the claimant filed a complaint for judicial review; jurisdiction for review of the decisions of the Board is vested in the District Court by Rhode Island General Laws 28-44-52.

The standard of review is provided by Rhode Island General Laws § 42-35-15(g), a section of the state Administrative Procedures Act, which provides as follows:

42-35-15. Judicial review of contested cases.

(g) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the

agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of

fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or

remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse

or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant

have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

 

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,

probative, and substantial evidence on the

whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse

of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of

discretion.

 

Thus, on questions of fact, the District Court " . . . may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency and must affirm the decision of the agency unless its findings are clearly erroneous." Guarino v. Department of Social Welfare, 122 R.I. 583, 584, 410 A.2d 425 (1980) citing Rhode Island General Laws § 42-35-15(g)(5). The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Cahoone v. Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security, 104 R.I. 503, 246 A.2d 213 (1968). Stated differently, the findings of the agency will be upheld even though a reasonable mind might have reached a contrary result. Cahoone v. Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, 104 R.I. 503, 246 A.2d 213, 215 (1968). See also D'Ambra v. Board of Review, Department of Employment Security, 517 A.2d 1039, 1041 (R.I. 1986).

The Court has recognized that a liberal interpretation shall be utilized in construing and applying the Employment Security Act:

. . . eligibility for benefits is to be determined in the light of the expressed legislative policy that "Chapters 42 to 44, inclusive, of this title shall be construed liberally in aid of their declared purpose which declared purpose is to lighten the burden which now falls upon the unemployed worker and his family." G.L.1956, § 28-42-73. The legislature having thus declared a policy of liberal construction, this court, in construing the act, must seek to give as broad an effect to its humanitarian purpose as it reasonably may in the circumstances. Of course, compliance with the legislative policy does not warrant an extension of eligibility by this court to any person or class of persons not intended by the legislature to share in the benefits of the act; but neither does it permit this court to enlarge the exclusionary effect of expressed restrictions on eligibility under the guise of construing such provisions of the act. Harraka v. Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, 98 R.I. 197, 201, 200 A.2d 595, 597 (1964).

The issue before the Court is whether the Board’s determination that the Referee’s decision was a proper adjudication of the facts and that the claimant failed to comply with the availability and registration for work requirements without good cause was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record and whether or not it was clearly erroneous.

The Board of Review made the following findings of fact:

"The claimant filed a claim for Employment Security benefits that was made effective February 13, 2000. He received a pamphlet instructing him to utilize the Tele-Serve system after February 27, 2000. The claimant was familiar with the system since he had utilized it in previous years. However, the claimant failed to utilized that system during the week ending March 4, 2000. When he attempted to utilize the Tele-Serve system on March 7, 2000, he was informed his claim would have to be refiled effective March 5, 2000. The claimant was denied benefits for the weeks ending February 26 and March 4, 2000."

The Board of Review made the following conclusions:

"The issue in this case is whether the claimant is subject to disqualification for failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 17, as promulgated under Section 28-44-12 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act.

Rule 17(f) reads as follows:

'Any individual who fails to contact the department utilizing the Telephone Automated Payment System, Tele-Serve, or who fails to contact the Department for their scheduled telephone interview, or who fails to return to the department's Call Center, the mail payment certification form by the end of the week following the week or weeks requested, shall not be eligible to establish credit for a waiting period or to receive benefits for the week or weeks during which such failure occurs, unless the reason for such failure is based upon good cause as shall be determined by the Director.'

This claim for benefits was made effective February 13, 2000. The claimant was instructed to utilize the Tele-Serve system after February 27, 2000 in order to request benefits for the week ending February 26, 2000. The claimant failed to utilize that system until March 7, 2000, when he was informed his claim would have to be refiled that week, since he failed to contact the Department of Labor and Training during the week ending March 4, 2000. The claimant was familiar with the Tele-Serve system, since he had utilized it in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Since the claimant failed to utilized the Tele-Serve system during the week ending March 4, 2000 to request benefits for the week ending February 26, 2000, he is denied benefits for that week. Additionally, since the above Rule states an individual '... shall not be eligible to... receive benefits for the week or weeks during which such failure occurs,...' the claimant is denied benefits for the week ending March 4, 2000 because that is the week during which his failure to utilize the Tele-Serve system occurred

* * *

The decision of the Director is affirmed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17, as promulgated under Section 28-44-12 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act. The claimant is denied benefits for the weeks ending February 26 and March 4, 2000."

A claimant in order to qualify for benefits must be available for work in accord with Rhode Island General Laws 28-44-12 which provides in its pertinent part:

Availability and registration for work. - An individual shall not be eligible for benefits for any week of his partial or total unemployment unless during such week he is physically able to work and available for work. To prove such availability for work, every individual partially or totally unemployed shall register for work and shall file claim for benefits at the employment office * * *. Every individual filing claim for benefits shall report whenever duly called for work through the employment office, and shall make an active, independent search for work. No individual shall be eligible for benefits for any week in which he fails, without good cause, to comply with the requirements as set forth hereinabove. (Emphasis added)

* * *

In accord with Rhode Island General Laws 28-44-11; 28-44-14, and 28-44-37, the Department has promulgated:

RULE 17

A. Every individual who wants to file a claim for waiting period credit or benefits shall contact the department's Call Center utilizing the telephone, or report in person to a Local Office, or by any other method prescribed by the Director. Said individual shall:

1) have in their possession his/her social security card with a valid social security number,

2) file the claim in accordance with the procedures, methods and on forms as prescribed by the Director,

3) register for work and make themselves available for Profiling Services as prescribed by law with the Employment Service

* * *

F. Any individual who fails to contact the department utilizing the Telephone Automated Payment System, Tele-Serve, or who fails to contact the Department for their scheduled telephone interview, or who fails to return to the department's Call Center, the mail payment certification form by the end of the week following the week or weeks requested, shall not be eligible to establish credit for a waiting period or to receive benefits for the week or weeks during which such failure occurs, unless the reason for such failure is based upon good cause as shall be determined by the Director.

* * *

The record before the Board of Review establishes that the claimant who had used the Tele-Serve reporting system on earlier occasions, overlooked his duty to do so regarding the instant claim for benefits since he was busy painting his living room. The Board did not accept the foregoing explanation as good cause to excuse proper compliance within the designated reporting requirements of the Statute and applicable Rule.

A review of the entire record demonstrates that there is substantial, probative and reliable evidence to support the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Board of Review.

On findings of fact, as to the weight of the evidence, this Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency.

The scope of judicial review by the Court is limited by Section 28-44-54 which in its pertinent part provides:

28-44-54. Scope of judicial review - Additional evidence - Precedence of proceedings. The jurisdiction of the reviewing court shall be confined to questions of law, and, in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact by the board of review, if supported by substantial evidence regardless of statutory or common law rules, shall be conclusive.

Upon careful review of the evidence, this Court finds that the decision of the Board was not "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record," and that said decision was not "arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." Rhode Island General Laws § 42-35-15(g)(5)(6).

Accordingly, the decision of the Board is hereby affirmed.