Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-08-002 (JTV).
Submitted: January 19, 2007.
Decided: April 30, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Appellant's Appeal from Decision of Industrial Accident Board.
AFFIRMED.
Sharon E. Conte, Camden, Delaware. Pro se.
Raymour Flanigan, Liverpool, New York. Pro se.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record of the case, it appears that:
1. Sharon E. Conte ("claimant") is appealing a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board"). Claimant began working for Raymour Flanigan Co. ("employer"), a furniture store, on March 28, 2005. She was a full-time sales consultant. On March 29, 2006, the employer held a "prospecting" event, which is essentially a marketing technique in which customers are contacted and invited to the store for sales, to see previews, and the like. The claimant was asked to help with the prospecting event and to give her customer list to a supervisor in connection therewith. She refused, and on March 30, 2006 she was discharged for refusing to turn over her client list to her manager.
2. Upon notice of her termination, claimant filed for unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy decided that the claimant was discharged for willful and wanton misconduct and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
3. Claimant appealed the Claims Deputy's decision to the Appeals Referee. The Appeals Referee affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy, stating that the employer had shown by a preponderance of evidence that the claimant was discharged for just cause in connection with her work. The Appeals Referee also found that the claimant received no warning per se prior to being terminated, but that the claimant's insubordination fell into a category that required no prior warning. The Appeals Referee also concluded that claimant was disqualified from receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, effective with the week ending April 8, 2006, until she has been employed in each of four subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned wages in covered employment equal to not less than four times the weekly benefit amount.
4. Claimant appealed the Appeals Referee's decision to the Appeal Board. The Board stated that the issue in this case was whether claimant's actions constituted insubordination. The Board went on to define insubordination, in the absence of a definition supplied by the employer, as "a wilful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer." The Board adopted the Appeals Referee's findings and concluded that claimant's refusal to give her customer list to her manager was insubordination and that she was not required to receive a warning before termination. The Board affirmed the Referee's decision and held that the claimant is denied benefits.
Scott v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 1993 WL 390365 fn. 2 (Del.Super.).
5. Claimant now appeals the Appeal Board's decision to this Court. The limited function of this Court in reviewing an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is to determine whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from them. The court merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings.
Oceanport Industries, Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc. 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del.Super.Ct. 1986), appeal dismissed, 515 A.2d 397 (Del. 1986).
Behr v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 1995 WL 109026 (Del.Super.).
6. The Board adopted the findings of the Appeals Referee and considered the sworn testimony of the claimant during the Board hearing. The claimant admitted during her testimony that she refused to give management the customer list. She explained that the list was available to management on the computer and the reason she did not give it to them was because she had already called her customers to let them know about the promotional event involved with the March 29 prospect. The Board held that her excuse was not sufficient to hold that she did not act in an insubordinate manner.
Employer chose not to participate in the Board hearing.
7. The claimant's arguments on appeal go to the factual issues of her unemployment claim. It is not the role of this Court to make findings of fact. The Appeals Referee was in a better position to make findings based on the testimony of the employer and the claimant. This Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the decision of the Board was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence.
8. Based upon the transcripts and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Board, adopting the Appeals Referee's findings, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that claimant was terminated for insubordination. The Appeals Referee had discretion to give more weight to the testimony of James Gittings and Heather Anderson, two of the witnesses, than to the testimony of the claimant.
9. The Board determined that the employer met its burden of proof by showing just cause for discharging the claimant. This decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and free of legal error.
10. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.