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

LUIS VENTURA:

v. : A.A. No. 07-06:

Dept. of Labor & Training, Board of Review :

DECISION

McLOUGHLIN, J.  This matter is before the Court on the complaint of Luis Ventura, 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 Corrected Decision of the Referee that the claimant was not entitled to receive employment security benefits.
            The travel of the case is as follows.  The claimant’s last day of work was October 4, 2006.  He filed a claim for Employment Security benefits on that same date.
On October 24, 2006 the Director issued a decision denying benefits under the provisions of Section 28-44-18 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act.  The claimant appealed.
A hearing was held before a Referee on November 28, 2006 at which the claimant appeared with legal counsel and with an interpreter.  An employer representative appeared and testified at the Referee hearing.
            The Referee held the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment security benefits, based on the determination that claimant was thus disqualified pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 28-44-18.
Thereafter, a timely appeal was filed and the matter was heard by the Board of Review.  The Board determined that the Referee’s decision was a proper adjudication of the facts, and upheld the Referee’s decision.  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.

1. 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).
2. The Court has recognized that a liberal interpretation shall be utilized in construing and applying the Employment Security Act:
3. . . . 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).
4.  
5. 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 was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record and whether or not it was clearly erroneous.
6.             The Board of Review adopted the following findings of fact of the Referee:
7. “The claimant had worked for this employer for approximately 26 months.  Beginning approximately four weeks prior to the date of his discharge, the claimant’s production rate fell off rapidly.
8.  
9. In a meeting initiated by the claimant’s supervisor with the company owner, the claimant indicated that he would not return to his regular production rate without receiving higher wages.  The claimant was discharged.  The evidence does not establish that the claimant had complained to his employer or any of its supervisors about any physical condition in a timely fashion.
10.  
11. The Board also held:
12.  
13. “That the findings of the Appeal Tribunal on the factual issues which are hereby incorporated by reference constitute a proper adjudication of the facts; the conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal as to the applicable law thereto are correct and proper and such findings and conclusions are hereby affirmed.”
14.  
15.  
16.  
17.  
18.  
19.  
20.  
21. The Board of Review adopted the following conclusions of the Referee:
22.  
23. “CONCLUSION:
24.  
25. The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant was discharged under disqualifying circumstances within the meaning of Section 28-44-18 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act.
26.  
27. In order to impose a disqualification under the provisions of Section 28-44-18, there must be proof that the person who was discharged committed an act of misconduct in connection with the work.
28.  
29. Section 28-44-18 of the General Laws of the state of Rhode Island provides:
30.             28-44-18.  Discharge for misconduct.  --  An individual who has been discharged for proved misconduct connected with his or her work shall thereby become ineligible for waiting period credit or benefits for the week in which that discharge occurred and until he or she establishes to the satisfaction of the director that he or she has, subsequent to that discharge, had at least eight (8) weeks of work, and in each of that eight (8) weeks has had earnings of at least twenty (20) times the minimum hourly wage as defined in chapter 12 of this title for performing services in employment for one or more employers subject to chapters 42 - 44 of this title; provided, however, that any individual who is required to leave his or her work pursuant to a plan, system, or program, public or private, providing for retirement, and who is otherwise eligible, shall under no circumstances be deemed to have been discharged for misconduct.  However, if an individual is discharged and a complaint is issued by the regional office of the national labor relations board or the state labor relations board that an unfair labor practice has occurred in relation to the discharge, the individual shall be entitled to benefits if otherwise eligible.  For the purposes of this section, "misconduct" shall be defined as deliberate conduct in willful disregard of the employer's interest, or a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, provided that such violation is not shown to be as a result of the employee's incompetence.  Notwithstanding any other provisions of chapters 42 - 44 of this title, this section shall be construed in a manner which is fair and reasonable to both the employer and the employed worker.
31.  
32. The standard for defining "misconduct" under section eighteen was provided by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Turner v. Department of Employment Security, 479 A.2d 740, 741-42 (R.I. 1984), in which the Court quoted from Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1940):
33. '[M]isconduct' . . . is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.  On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence  in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' within the meaning of  the statute.
34.