Kasnowski v. Department of Employment Sec., 192-78
| Decision Date | 10 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 192-78,192-78 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Chester KASNOWSKI v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. |
James C. May, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Springfield, for plaintiff.
Michael F. Ryan and Brooke Pearson, Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., DALEY, LARROW and HILL, JJ., and SMITH, J. (Retired), Specially Assigned.
Claimant Kasnowski appeals from a determination of the Employment Security Board disqualifying him from unemployment compensation benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A) as having left his last employing unit voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employing unit. He challenges some of the findings below as unsupported, and asserts that even if supported they do not support the Board's conclusion. We disagree and affirm.
Appellant makes a forceful argument with respect to the evidence before the Board, which might even be persuasive were we the triers of fact in the first instance. But we are not, and, as we have many times indicated, we will not disturb the findings of the Board unless, considered as a whole, there is no evidence to support the decision. LaFountain v. Vermont Employment Security Board, 133 Vt. 42, 46, 330 A.2d 468, 471 (1974). Weight, credibility and persuasive effect are for the trier of fact. A review of the record convinces us that the findings needed to support the Board's conclusions find support in the evidence, although sharply contradicted and, on some nonessential particulars, substantially discredited.
The findings which bear directly upon the Board's decision may be summarized to delineate the point in issue. Claimant was a seasonal employee, assistant chef trainee at the Nordic Inn, Inc., in Londonderry during the 1976-77 season. He was laid off in the spring of 1977 for lack of work. He was re-employed for the 1977-78 season in August, 1977, under an oral work agreement, as assistant chef. He agreed to longer work hours, not defined, during high volume periods. His "understanding" of what these meant was based upon his previous season's experience. The precise terms of the agreement were disputed, but the Board found on credible evidence that he agreed to "long hours" at periods of high business volume, including Christmas and Washington Birthday weekends. From Christmas 1977 through New Year's, 1978, claimant worked 551/2 hours for his employer, plus some six hours on New Year's Eve for another employer. On New Year's Day, he had a discussion about being tardy on two occasions and his employer's expectation of "long hours." He stated that he needed seven hours sleep between shifts, and was told he could not be guaranteed this over Washington's Birthday. He then requested his pay check immediately and said he was leaving....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bombard v. Dep't of Labor (fisher Auto Parts Inc.
...476 A.2d at 141 (“a quit for anticipatory reasons is not good cause attributable to the employer” (citing Kasnowski v. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 137 Vt. 380, 382, 406 A.2d 388, 389 (1979))). Before terminating employment unilaterally, an employee must make some effort to remedy alleged poor work......
-
Cook v. Department of Employment and Training, 82-027
...fact. Weight, credibility and persuasive effect are for the trier of fact, in this case, the Board. Kasnowski v. Department of Employment Security, 137 Vt. 380, 381, 406 A.2d 388, 389 (1979). The Board heard both the claimant's and the employer's account concerning the issue of control over......
-
Howard v. Department of Employment and Training, 87-284
...v. Department of Employment & Training, 148 Vt. 142, 143, 530 A.2d 571, 572 (1987) (quoting Kasnowski v. Department of Employment Security, 137 Vt. 380, 381, 406 A.2d 388, 389 (1979)) ("findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless, 'considered as a whole, there is no evidence to support ......
-
St. Martin v. Dep't of Labor, 11–084.
...for something that is only a future possibility and has not actually yet occurred does not justify the award of benefits.” 137 Vt. 380, 382, 406 A.2d 388, 390 (1979). ¶ 5. Claimant appeals from this decision and argues that there was good cause attributable to her employer because she was t......