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

JASON ENRIGHT :

V. : A.A. 04-107

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, BOARD OF REVIEW :

D E C I S I O N

GORMAN, J. Through a petition filed in this court pursuant to Section 42-35-15 a worker seeks to reverse an administrative tribunal's decision finding him ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was dismissed for misconduct connected with his job.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
After a confrontation with his immediate supervisor, Jason Enright was fired from his job as a collection assistant at a company that handled workers' compensation claims. He sought unemployment compensation, but was denied these benefits by the Director of the Department of Labor and Training. This determination was appealed, and a referee affirmed the director's decision. An appeal to the Department of Labor and Training Board of Review followed, and the board in a two to one vote adopted the views of the referee.
The referee made the following findings and comments based on a hearing at which both the claimant and his immediate supervisor testified:
The claimant had been working approximately three months as [a] medical billing person for his last employer. His last day of work was June 24, 2004. The claimant was terminated on that day for a confrontation with the employer after being reprimanded by the employer for making personal phone calls and Internet use for personal reasons. The claimant indicated that the confrontation occurred when he felt the employer was being unduly critical of him because of the issue and also because his reprimand had occurred in front of other employees.

* * *

I find that on the last day in question the claimant was reprimanded by his supervisor concerning personal phone calls and use of Internet. This had been precipitated by a memo being issued to this effect earlier in the day. This reprimand escalated into confrontation between the claimant and the employer resulting in his separation. I find that in this instance, the employer has met their (sic) burden. The employer has demonstrated that the claimant's actions, the confrontation with the employer, over the reprimand, resulted directly in his separation and constitutes misconduct rising to the level as defined above [referring to the discussion of "misconduct" in Turner v. Department of Employment and Training, Board of Review].

The record also reflects that the day before he was fired, there was another incident involving the claimant and his supervisor. According to the supervisor's testimony, she had "numerous conversations" with the claimant concerning his conduct in talking to employers, insurance company representatives and persons with workers' compensation claims. The company representative explained that she told Mr. Enright that they were trying to build a business at Landmark Medical Center and it was important to present the correct image to people. Two separate supervisors had told claimant that he was not to yell at people over the phone.

II. DISCUSSION
The scope of a court's review is quite limited when considering a challenge to an administrative decision. Generally, in order to reverse the decision of a trial tribunal, the court must find an error of law. Through § 42-35-15(g) R.I. General Laws, the legislature has mandated that: "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." Applying these standards to questions of "proven misconduct" under § 28-44-18, the decision of the agency will be upheld so long as there is no error of law and the tribunal's determination is supported by reliable and substantial evidence when looking at the record as a whole. Chartier v. Department of Employment and Training, 673 A.2d 1078, 1080 (R.I. 1996).

In this case, the conduct which precipitated claimant's firing involved a confrontation following a reprimand for personal use of the telephone and after being given a memorandum prohibiting that practice. But this was merely the final incident in a series of events through which the claimant demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to comply with the procedural requirements of his job. His principal supervisor stated that she had a number of discussions with him about how he handled telephone calls with business contacts, and on June 4 another supervisor raised the same point with him - and he responded by saying that she did not have authority to tell him what to do (when, in fact, she was given this power). The main supervisor talked to him again on June 6.

Mr. Enright's attitude toward his supervisors was consistently combative and confrontational. Each time he was criticized, he lashed out at the critic, and on two occasions ended up yelling at his principal supervisor. In the ultimate incident on June 24, the supervisor testified that he "screamed" at her, using a vulgar reference, and leaned over her desk and "pointed his finger" at her. She further stated that "[y]ou can't tell him anything. He, he appears that way to the other supervisor in the office. He spoke that way to me and the whole office could hear him yelling."
Even though the incidents occurred over a fairly brief period of time, the petitioner's actions cannot be considered isolated acts as was found by the dissenting board member and argued to this court. If the supervisor's testimony is believed, and the decision of the board indicates that it found her credible, Mr. Enright's conduct represents an intentional refusal to defer to the instructions of his employer in those occasions where it was contrary to what he wished to do.

Viewing the record in its entirety, the court is persuaded that there is substantial, and highly probative evidence in this case to support the decision of the board, and, therefore, its ruling finding Mr. Enright ineligible for unemployment benefits is affirmed.