Pacheco v. Housing Authority of the City of Willimantic

The claimant was represented by Jeffrey F. Gostyla, Esq., Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik & Lynch, 136 West Main St., P.O. Box 2950, New Britain, CT 06050-2950.

The respondent was represented by Gary R. Atkinson, Esq., Law Office of Anthony J. Palermino, 945 Wethersfield Ave., Hartford, CT 06114.

This Petition for Review from the August 30, 1994 Ruling on the Employer’s Motion to Open Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard May 19, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent has petitioned for review from the August 30, 1994 Ruling on the Employer’s Motion to Open Award by the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In a Finding and Award dated August 3, 1994, the trial commissioner ruled that the claimant was discharged in violation of § 31-290a C.G.S and ordered the reinstatement of the claimant. The commissioner’s decision was based on a formal hearing held on July 27, 1994 at which only the claimant and her union representative were present. On August 24, 1994, the respondent filed a motion to open the award, arguing that the respondent’s representative was unable to attend the hearing at the scheduled time of 9:00 a.m. due to an emergency, and that the proceedings should have been delayed until his arrival at 10:20 a.m. The trial commissioner denied the respondent’s motion to reopen after holding a formal hearing on the motion. The respondent’s appeal from that denial is the only issue presently before this board.

The respondent filed an appeal with the Appellate Court on August 19, 1994 from the Finding and Award regarding the claimant’s § 31-290a unlawful discharge claim. In its appeal to the Appellate Court, the respondent included the following in its Statement of the Issues: “Did the Commissioner err in refusing to allow the employer to participate in the Formal Hearing?” and “The conduct of the Commissioner at the Formal Hearing was prejudical (sic) to the Appellant.” On January 9, 1996, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial commissioner’s decision. Pacheco v. Housing Authority of the City of Willimantic, 40 Conn. App. 907 (1996). The respondent’s appeal to this board raises the same issues which were made to the Appellate Court. As the Appellate Court has reviewed these issues and has found no error on the part of the trial commissioner, we will thus dismiss the respondent’s appeal to this board as moot. See Bakerville Lumber & Construction Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 38 Conn. App. 212, 213 (1995).