Opinion
Civil Action No. 06A-08-003.
Date Submitted: January 31, 2007.
April 9, 2007.
Tammy E. Clark, Millsboro, Delaware.
Loyal Order of Moose, Attn: Richard Stec, Lewes, Delaware.
Dear Ms. Clark and Mr. Stec:
Tammy E. Clark ("Ms. Clark") appeals the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("the Board") that denied Ms. Clark's request for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board denied Ms. Clark's request for benefits after concluding she voluntarily left her position of employment with Loyal Order of Moose ("Employer") without good cause. For the reasons set forth herein, the Board's decision is affirmed.
Procedural Factual Background
Ms. Clark worked for Employer as a bartender from 1994 until April 2006. As a general rule, Ms. Clark worked day shifts during the week as well as the Friday evening shift. Ms. Clark testified below that she had never worked a shift on Saturday during the twelve years she worked for Employer. On April l7, 2006, Ms. Clark reported to work for the Friday evening shift and discovered that the work schedule had been changed. As a result of the change, Ms. Clark was scheduled to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Also pursuant to the new schedule, Ms. Clark was not scheduled to work Friday night but was, instead, scheduled to work Saturday. Ms. Clark testified that quit her job in frustration when she saw this schedule change. Ms. Clark did not discuss her unhappiness with the schedule change with her supervisor.
A Claims Deputy determined that Ms. Clark was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she voluntarily left her job without good cause. Ms. Clark appealed the decision and a hearing was held before an Appeals Referee on May 23, 2006. Ms. Clark attended the hearing, as did Richard Stec, Employer's representative, and Renee Kiker, a former co-worker of Ms. Clark's. By way of letter decision mailed May 25, 2006, the Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy's decision. Ms. Clark appealed this determination to the Board. A hearing was held on the matter on July 12, 2006, and a decision mailed to the parties on August 9, 2006. The Board held that Ms. Clark left her place of employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to such work and, therefore, she was not entitled to unemployment benefits. Ms. Clark appeals that decision.
Discussion
When reviewing the decisions of the Board, this Court must determine whether the Board's findings and conclusions of law are free from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); Pochvatilla v. United States Postal Serv., 1997 WL 524062 (Del.Super. Jun. 9, 1997); 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) ("In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the [Board] as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law."). "Substantial evidence" is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion". Gorrell v. Division of Vocational Rehab., 1996 WL 453356, at *2 (Del.Super. July 31, 1996). The Court's review is limited: "It is not the appellate court's role to weigh the evidence, determine credibility questions or make its own factual findings, but merely to decide if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings." McManus v. Christiana Serv. Co., 1197 WL 127953, at *1 (Del.Super. Jan. 31, 1997).
In this case, the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Delaware law states that an individual will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if that individual left work "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). Claimant bears the burden for demonstrating good cause existed for voluntarily terminating the employment relationship. Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 287 A.2d 690 (Del.Super. 1971). An undesirable or unsafe situation does not constitute good cause. O'Neal's Bus Serv., Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 269 A.2d 247 (Del.Super. 1970). However, "[g]ood cause can include a substantial reduction in wages, work hours or a substantial deviation in the working conditions from the original agreement of hire to the detriment of the employee." Weathersby v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1995 WL 465326, at * 5 (Del.Super. Jun. 29, 1995). In order to qualify for benefits, an employee must do something comparable to exhausting administrative remedies by, for example, giving notice to the employer and seeking to have the situation remedied. Id.
The Board found that Ms. Clark quit her job because the schedule change, together with some trivial demands imposed by a recent change in management, were unacceptable to her. The Board also found that Ms. Clark chose to leave rather than tell Employer of her dissatisfaction and provide Employer with the opportunity to address her concerns. Ms. Clark testified she had "had it" with the job conditions and that she was so upset that she quit on the spot. Accordingly, the Board concluded Ms. Clark did not exhaust her administrative remedies, as required by Delaware law, and, therefore, she had failed to demonstrate good cause. The Board's conclusions are supported by the evidence presented below and its decision is affirmed.
Such demands included Employer's requests that Ms. Clark arrive at work a few minutes before the start of her shift and that she fix her hair and makeup prior to starting her shift.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Board's decision denying unemployment insurance benefits to Ms. Clark is affirmed.