Opinion
C.A. N10A-09-020.
Date Submitted: March 14, 2011.
Date Decided: May 3, 2011.
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board: AFFIRMED.
Rhonda A. Fetkenher, Pro se, Punta Gorda, Florida.
Leroy A. Tice, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appelle.
OPINION
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Rhonda A. Fetkenher (hereinafter "Claimant"), files this appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's (the "Board") decision denying her Petition for unemployment benefits. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. Accordingly, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Claimant was employed as an account executive by New Castle County Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter "Employer") from December 2008 through August 6, 2009. Claimant earned $15,000 per year plus commission. When Claimant was hired, she was provided with an offer letter that stated her base pay and commission based on a percentage of sales. Employer believed Claimant could make up to $23,000 during the time she worked, but she actually earned $26,000.On April 11, 2010, Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which was denied by a Claims Deputy. Claimant appealed the Claims Deputy's decision to an Appeals Referee, who affirmed the Deputy's decision. The Referee found that Claimant resigned due to lack of sales and low income, and therefore, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314, Claimant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she resigned for "good cause." Claimant appealed the Referee's Decision to the Board who affirmed the decision holding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without "good cause."
R. at 5-7.
R. at 25-7.
Claimant appeals the Board's decision, arguing that pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314 (1) she resigned for "good cause" because she left work due to her spouse's job relocation. Employer argues that "nowhere in the record is it determined as a matter of fact that [Claimant] left her work for the purpose of relocating." Further, Employer notes that, according to the Board, Claimant had no intention of relocating with her husband to Florida. Employer claims that because Claimant left work due to lower than expected income she did not have "good cause" to resign, and thus, is not entitled to unemployment benefits.
19 Del. C. § 3314 (1) in relevant part states, "An individual, who quits work in order to accompany that individual's spouse to a place from which it is impractical for such individual to commute and due to a change in location of that individual's spouse's employment, will not be considered to have left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work."
Appellee's Answering Brief at 4.
Id.; R at 26.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal, this Court determines whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This Court does not act as the trier of fact, nor does it have authority to weigh the evidence, decide issues of credibility, or make factual conclusions. In reviewing the record for substantial evidence, the Court must consider the record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. The Court's review of conclusions of law is de novo. Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions.
General Motors v. McNemar, 202 A.2d 803, 805 (Del. Super. 1964); General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. Super. 1960).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. Super. 1994).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. Super. 1965).
Benson v. Phoenix Steele, 1992 WL 354033, at *2 (Del Super. Nov. 6, 1992).
Reese v. Home Budget Center, 619 A.2d 907 (Del. Super. 1992).
Dellachiesa v. General Motors Corp., 140 A.2d 137 (Del. Super. 1958).
DISCUSSION
At the hearing before the Appeal's Referee, Claimant testified she left her position because her husband had relocated to Florida and her income was below what she had anticipated. The Referee determined that Claimant had left work due to lower than expected income and not to move to Florida with her husband. Additionally, before the Board, Claimant "confirmed that she had no intention of relocating to Florida to accompany her husband." In order to qualify for unemployment insurance, an employee who voluntarily relinquishes employment has the burden of proving that she left for "good cause" attributable to work. "Good cause" includes circumstances amounting to a substantial reduction in wages or hours, or a substantial deviation from the original working conditions to the employee's detriment. An employee who quits work in order to relocate with their spouse to a location where it would unreasonable to commute has left work for "good cause."There is sufficient evidence for the Board to conclude that Claimant did not leave for "good cause." Claimant admitted she did not intend to relocate to Florida, and therefore, did not establish "good cause" pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314. Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she had experienced a substantial deviation in working conditions or that her reduction in wages justified quitting. Claimant was projected to make $23,000 during the applicable period. Claimant exceeded this expectation by earning $26,000 during this period. Claimant was never promised a salary above the $15,000 base pay, and knew that her earnings were contingent upon commission. As such, Claimant did not establish that she suffered a substantial reduction in wage to justify her quitting. It is the Claimant's burden to establish that she is entitled to unemployment insurance, and where substantial evidence supports a Board conclusion, the Court must defer to the Board's finding.
R. at 26.
R. at 23; See R. at 26.
R. at 26. See R. at 25-6.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDEDED.