Opinion
CA NO. 00A-03-005-NAB.
Submitted: July 19, 2000;
Decided: September 6, 2000.
Appeal From a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Decision Affirmed.
Stanford Hudson, 2514 Tatnall Street, Wilmington, DE 19802, Pro Se Appellant.
Re-Steel Supply Company, 2000 Eddystone Industrial Park, Eddystone, PA 19022, Pro se Employer.
James Hanley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, for the Board.
ORDER
Having reviewed this appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board), the Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Claimant Stanford Hudson worked as a truck driver for Re-Steel Supply Company (Employer) for approximately 14 months. He worked 10 to 24 hours per week, and his assignments were made on an as-needed basis.
2. On November 24, 1999, Claimant completed two assignments and was given another one over the phone by Employer's dispatcher. Claimant refused the third assignment, telling the dispatcher that he did only two moves per day. The owner took the phone from the dispatcher and advised Claimant that he would be fired if he failed to complete the third assignment. When Claimant again refused, he was terminated from his position.
3. Claimant filed a petition for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment. His petition was denied by a claims deputy. On Claimant's appeal, the appeals referee held a hearing and subsequently affirmed the claims deputy's decision that Claimant was discharged for just cause in connection with his work and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed, and the Board held another hearing. The Board adopted the referee's findings and conclusions, and Claimant appealed to this Court.
4. In his letter/opening brief, Claimant restates his position that, as a part-time employee, he had been free to leave work after having completed four hours of work. He also asserts that Employer fired him to prevent him from collecting unemployment benefits, rather than for any work-related reason. Neither the Board nor Employer filed an answering brief.
5. Because Claimant is unrepresented by counsel, the Court will accept his assertions as argument that the referee's factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence, which is the appropriate standard of review on appeal of a decision of the Board. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
When the Board adopts the referee's decision, this Court reviews the referee's findings and conclusions under the same standard that is applied to the Board's findings and conclusions. Lowe Bros. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., 316 A.2d 568 (1974), aff'd, Del. Supr., 332 A.2d 150 (1975).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Supr., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (1965).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Del. Supr., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (1994).
6. At the hearing before the referee, Claimant stated that because he was a part-time worker, he had no obligation to tell Employer his reason for refusing the third move. At the Board hearing, Claimant stated for the first time that his actual reason for refusing the third assignment was that he had an appointment with an eye doctor. He explained to the Board that he had not informed the referee of the appointment because he did not believe that he had to give reasons for leaving work early because he was a part-time employee. Claimant also testified that he had on occasion done as many a five moves in one day.
Record of Hearing at 36. Subsequent references to the certified record will appear as "Rec. at page no."
Rec. at 37.
7. The referee found that Claimant had no valid reason to refuse to complete the third assignment and that this refusal was in violation of his expected standard of conduct, his duties and Employer's interests. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the referee's conclusions, particularly in light of Claimant's eleventh hour assertion of a doctor's appointment. His later assertion that he had no need to explain himself to Employer because he was a part-time employee has no merit. Furthermore, by his own admission, Claimant had performed as many as five moves in one day. The referee's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the decision contains no error of law.
Rec. at 36.
For these reasons, the decision of the Board affirming the referee's denial of Claimant Stanford Hudson's petition for unemployment benefits must be and hereby is AFFIRMED .
It Is So ORDERED .