Summary
holding that "just cause includes notice to the employee in the form of a final warning that further poor behavior or performance may lead to termination"
Summary of this case from Martin v. Delaware Supermarkets, Inc.Opinion
C.A. No. 02A-06-007SCD
Submitted: October 24, 2002
Decided: November 14, 2002
Upon petitioners appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board — AFFIRMED
ORDER
This 14th day of November, 2002, upon consideration of petitioner's opening papers, the answering brief of the respondents, and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) Petitioner Angelo Pinghera ("Pinghera") has appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB") that reversed an earlier ruling by an Appeals Referee ("Referee") entitling Pinghera to unemployment benefits.
(2) Pinghera was employed by Creative Home Solutions, Inc. (CHS) from January 1, 2001 through January 25, 2002, when he was discharged for performance and behavior outside CHS's established standard. Pinghera timely applied for unemployment compensation. A Claims Deputy ruled that Pinghera had been discharged without just cause and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. CHS appealed this decision to the Referee.
(3) After a formal hearing, the Referee found that Pinghera "was discharged from his employment because of his work performance." Pinghera "had been issued a verbal warning in June for his failure to assist fellow employees in the warehouse. . ." and not learning to drive a box truck. Pinghera's October 8, 2001, employee evaluation was replete with performance and attitude demerits and he was again ordered to "improve his attitude and stop commenting that certain jobs are not his responsibility . . . [and] improve his attitude with customers in the field."
(4) The Referee ruled that Pinghera had received verbal warnings in June and October 2001, but he was not provided final written warning that his job was in jeopardy. Further, the Referee held that the evidence produced by CHS was insufficient to establish that Pinghera had acted with wilful or wanton misconduct. The Referee found that Pinghera's termination lacked just cause. That is, Pinghera was not terminated for just cause and he was therefore entitled to receive unemployment benefits. CHS appealed to the UIAB.
(5) The UIAB held a hearing at which Pinghera failed to appear. The Referee's factual findings were adopted and the UIAB heard additional testimony from CHS's president, Mike Biliunas ("Biliunas"). Biliunas stated that Pinghera was hired to assist the driver of a delivery box truck. He had warned Pinghera three times about attitude and performance. The first warning came in June of 2000, regarding an incident between Pinghera and the box truck driver. Pinghera was told that there would be further discipline if he did not improve his performance and attitude. The second warning came during Pinghera's employee evaluation in October 2001, where he was again counseled regarding attitude and performance improvements. Further, Pinghera was advised that he needed to learn how to drive the box truck as a part of his job function. Biliunas testified that again on November 16, 2001, after an outburst by Pinghera, he told him, "[t]his is it. I am going to replace you unless you pick up your attitude and do your job." Finally, on January 15, 2002, Pinghera was involved in a job site confrontation regarding his work responsibilities which ultimately resulted in his termination on January 25, 2002.
(6) Based upon the Referee's findings and additional testimony, the UIAB concluded that the CHS had established a standard of conduct and performance for Pinghera and provided him adequate forewarning. The UIAB found that "[g]iven the final warning [on November 16, Pinghera's] actions on January 15, 2002, were wilful or wanton and provided [CHS] with just cause for his discharge." The Referees decision was reversed and Pinghera was disqualified for benefits beginning the date of his termination from CHS. Pinghera appealed.
(7) The function of this Court on review of a UIAB decision is to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant to a reasonable person, or that which adequately supports a reasonable conclusion. This Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make factual findings.
(8) An employee may be denied unemployment benefits upon a finding that the employee was terminated for `just cause.' Employee performance and conduct is highly relevant in assessing just cause. Absent evidence to the contrary, an employer necessarily sets the standard for acceptable workplace performance. Just cause refers to a "wilful or wanton act in violation of either the employer's interest, or of the employee's duties, or of the employee's expected standard of conduct." Wilful and wanton conduct is that which is evidenced by either conscious action, or reckless indifference leading to a deviation from established and acceptable workplace performance; it is unnecessary that it be founded in bad motive or malice. Finally, just cause includes notice to the employee in the form of a final warning that further poor behavior or performance may lead to termination.
(9) The UIAB found that Pinghera had been made aware of his workplace performance and behavior requirements. That is, CHS required Pinghera to improve his attitude with fellow employees and customers. Pinghera was also counseled about his attitude and performance with respect to work tasks that he deemed outside the scope of his employment. The UIAB found Biliunas' testimony credible in that it established that Pinghera had been issued a final warning regarding workplace conduct. Ultimately, the UIAB held that the incident of January 15, 2002, was Pinghera's final act of wilful and wanton conduct in disregard of established workplace standards. The UIAB concluded that Pinghera's conduct was unacceptable as established by CHS, Pinghera had been duly warned, and that his wilful and wanton conduct on January 15, 2002, was ample evidence of just cause.
(10) This Court finds that the facts relied upon by the UIAB are based upon substantial evidence. Further, the UIAB accurately applied the facts to well established law.
See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19 § 3315(2) stating that no individual shall be eligible for unemployment benefits if "[the individual was discharged from the individual's work for just cause in connection with the individual's work. . ." (emphasis added).
See Referee's Decision of April 19, 2002, at 3.
See id. at 4.
Id.
See id. at 5.
Id.
Id.
See Decision of the Appeal Bd. at 1.
Id.
See id. at 2.
See Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975); see e.g. General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960).
See Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 293 A.2d 295 (Del. 1972); see also Boughton v. Div. of Unemployment Ins., 300 A.2d 25, 26-27 (Del.Super. 1972), Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (Del.Super. 1979).
See Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994).
See Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 231 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del.Super. 1985).
See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19 § 3315(2) at supra note 1.
See Abex Corp. v. Todd, 235 A.2d 271, 272 (Del.Super. 1967) (citations omitted); see also Weaver v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 274 A.2d 446, 447 (Del.Super. 1971).
See Abex Corp., 235 A.2d at 272; see e.g. Boughton, 300 A.2d at 26-27 (Del.Super. 1972).
See Coleman v. Department of Labor, 288 A.2d 285, 288 (Del.Super. 1972) (citations omitted).
See Ortiz v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 317 A.2d 100 (Del. 1974); see generally Moeller v. WSFS, 723 A.2d 1177 (Del. 1999).
THEREFORE, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED