Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the Employment Security Board of Review affirming the decision of an appeals referee of the Employment Security Appeals Division that the plaintiff was liable for certain unpaid unemployment compensation contributions under the Unemployment Compensation Act (§ 31-222 et seq.). The plaintiff sold jewelry and provided body piercing and tattoo services in its store at a shopping mall. The plaintiff and S, a tattoo artist, entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff would receive one half of S's fees for tattoo services that S would sell from a room in the plaintiff's store. An audit by the defendant Administrator of the Unemployment Compen- sation Act thereafter determined that S was an employee of the plaintiff, rather than an independent contractor, as the plaintiff had claimed. The appeals referee found, inter alia, that S did not pay rent to the plaintiff for the room, that S performed tattoo services only during store hours, and that the plaintiff advertised on its website and Facebook page that customers could have tattoos done at its store. The board determined that the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the three requirements of the ABC test, as set forth in § 31-222 (a) (1) (B) (ii) (I), (II) and (III), which governs the determination of whether services performed by an individual constitute employment under the act. On appeal from the appeals referee's decision that affirmed the defendant's determination, the board reasoned that, under part B of the ABC test in § 31-222 (a) (1) (B) (ii) (II), S's tattoo services were not performed outside of the plaintiff's usual course of the business or outside of the place of its business, and that S's tattoo services were an integral part of the plain- tiff's business enterprise. After the plaintiff appealed to the trial court, the board denied in part a motion the plaintiff filed to correct certain of the appeals referee's findings of fact. The defend

The defendant administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act appealed to this court from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division, which affirmed the determina- tion by an appeals referee that the plaintiff was not entitled to certain unemployment benefits. The plaintiff, who had been employed by A Co., had been found eligible for unemployment benefits by the adminis- trator. A Co. appealed from that decision, and the appeals referee, following a hearing, reversed the decision of the administrator to award benefits to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who did not attend the hearing before the appeals referee, thereafter filed a motion to open the referee's decision, arguing that he had not received notice of the hearing. The referee denied the plaintiff's motion on the ground that he had not established good cause for his failure to participate in the hearing, finding that, the notice had been properly mailed to the plaintiff at his usual address where he had received all other notices, the notice had not been returned as undeliverable, and the plaintiff had admitted that he may have inadvertently discarded the notice. The board subsequently affirmed the decision of the referee, concluding that the evidence sup- ported the referee's findings and conclusion. Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which found that there was no evidence that the defendant had properly mailed notice of the hearing before the appeals referee and remanded the case for a de novo appeal hearing before the referee. Held that the Superior Court exceeded its scope of authority by assessing the factual findings of the referee, as adopted by the board, and determining that because there was no evidence to support the referee's findings, the board had acted unreasonably, ille- gally, or in abuse of its discretion by denying the plaintiff's motion to open; in an appea