Opinion
C.A. No. 99A-12-005-JTV (Consolidated).
Submitted: September 11, 2000.
Decided: December 29, 2000.
Upon Consideration of Appellants Appeal From The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Cary A.M. Merrill, Capt., USAF, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Appellee.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record of this case, it appears that:
1. In this consolidated proceeding, four former civilian employees at Dover Air Force Base appeal decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board requiring that they reimburse the State of Delaware for unemployment benefits paid after they were involuntarily retired. During the period for which they received unemployment benefits, the appellants also received retirement pension payments from the Air Force. Because the employer financed portion of the pension payments which they received exceeded the unemployment benefits they were also paid, the Board's decision was correct and must be affirmed.
2. In 1998, the Appellants, air reserve technicians at the air base, were forced into involuntary retirement. They then each began receiving a retirement annuity from the Federal Government. During the years that they worked at the air base, each had paid seven percent of his wages into the retirement annuity. The government matched that amount. Upon their involuntary retirements, the retirement annuities payable to each were as follows: Dale D. Cawby — $2,829 per month ($652 per week); John B. Moffa — $3,400 per month ($784 per week); Edward L. Langham — $3,170 per month ($731 per week); Crawford D. McNew — $2,716 per month ($626 per week).
3. After their retirements they also applied for unemployment benefits. Based upon the circumstances of their separation from employment, each was determined to be eligible for benefits. It appears that each was determined to be eligible for the statutory maximum of $300 per week. Each was paid unemployment benefits in the following total amounts: Dale D. Cawby — $7,800; John E. Moffa — $7,800; Edward L. Langham — $4,800; and Crawford D. McNew — $5,224.
4. The Department of the Air Force, Unemployment Division, reimbursed the State in full. The Air Force took the position, however, that no unemployment benefits should have been paid because the employer financed portion of the Appellants' pensions exceeded the unemployment benefits. It then petitioned the Department of Labor (the "Department") to review the awards. Ultimately the Board determined that the Appellants' retirement pensions offset their unemployment benefits to zero, and that the Appellants would have to reimburse the Department in full.
5. Appellants contend that their annuity payments should not have been considered when their unemployment benefit eligibility was calculated. They believed that their initial annuity payments should have been considered a return of their capital contribution to the annuity. Also, Appellants argue that, as a matter of fairness, the statute should not be applied to them because they were forced into involuntary retirement.
6. On appeal from a decision of the UJAB, the scope of the court's review is limited to a determination of whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. The jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law.
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308 (1975); General Motors v. Freeman, Del. Supr., 164 A.2d 686, 688 (1960); Lonbgobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., 287 A.2d 690 (1971).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Del. Super., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Super., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (1986), app. dism., Del. Supr., 515 A.2d 397 (1986).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corporation. Del. Supr., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (1965).
7. The Board based its decision on 19 Del. C. § 3313(m) which reads in relevant part as follows:
The weekly benefit amount payable to an individual . . . and which begins in a period with respect to which such individual is receiving or is eligible to receive a government or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity or other similar periodic payment . . . shall be reduced (but not below 0) by the sum of the prorated weekly amount of such pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity or other payment . . . provided that . . . (I) The requirements of this paragraph shall only apply in case of a . . . payment made . . . by a . . . chargeable employer; (2) The amount of any such reduction shall be determined taking into account contributions made by the individual for the pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity or other similar period payment.
The Department of the Air Force is a chargeable employer. The Board determined that this provision required that each Appellant's weekly benefit be reduced by 50% of the amount of that Appellant's retirement benefit attributable to that week. Since the retirement annuity benefit was more than twice the unemployment benefit for each Appellant, the benefits of each Appellant were reduced to zero.
8. The Board rejected the Appellants' contentions that their initial retirement annuity payments should have been considered entirely as a return of their contributions, rather than a 50%-50% return of the employee and the employer. The Board also rejected their contention that the statute should not be applied to them because they were forced into involuntary retirement. The Board was clearly correct on both points. The statute clearly contemplates that the employee's contributions will be taken into account on a pro-rata basis, and there is nothing in the statute which excludes involuntary retirements. The Board's legal conclusions are correct and the Appellants are liable for repayment of all unemployment benefit payments which they received.
19 Del. C. § 3325.
9. The Court has some sympathy for the Appellants because they were told that they were entitled to the unemployment benefits and they received the payments in good faith. However, the law is clear and unambiguous and the Board's decision that they must repay the benefits erroneously paid to them is correct.
10. Therefore, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.