Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-07-008 MJB.
Submitted: August 9, 2007.
Decided: September 17, 2007.
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
AFFIRMED.
Amy Norris, Newark, Delaware, Appellant, pro se.
Mary Page Bailey, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
OPINION AND ORDER
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Appellant, Amy Norris ("Norris") worked for JJ Staffing ("JJ"), a temporary employment agency. Beginning in January, 2006, she was assigned to the Hibber Group, where she worked until May 17, 2006, at which time she was released from the assignment. The employment agreement between Norris and JJ required Norris to notify the employer within 48 hours after any assignment ended. Norris did not inform JJ that her assignment had ended until May 22 or 23, 2006. On May 26, 2007, JJ contacted Norris to give her a new assignment to begin on May 30, 2006. Norris declined to accept the assignment because she had to attend a funeral. Norris filed an application for unemployment benefits with the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance. The Claims Deputy denied Norris's claim on the grounds that she voluntarily terminated her employment. Norris appealed that determination to a tribunal as provided in 19 Del.C. § 3318 (b), and the Appeals Referee affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy and issued a written decision on June 14, 2006.
See generally DEL CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 3314(1). (2005)
Norris appealed the Referee's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("Board") on July 7, 2006. After reviewing the record, the Board denied Norris's appeal and issued a written decision on July 25, 2006. The Board ruled that, by statute, the Referee's decision became final after Norris failed to appeal the decision to the Board within 10 days. Accordingly, the Board denied Norris's appeal for failure to file within the designated time limits. This appeal was timely filed, on July 31, 2006. In her submission, Norris does not challenge the record regarding the procedural status of the case, but, rather, argues the merits of her claim.
See generally DEL CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 3318(c) (2005).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may review a Board decision only after an aggrieved party has exhausted all administrative remedies. Jurisdiction does not vest in this Court until an appellant has taken all administrative avenues available. When the Board dismisses an appeal on procedural grounds without ruling on its merits, this Court is without jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the appeal.
Gullion v. Advance Xing Pain, C.A. No. 05A-10-005-JEB, 2006 WL 1067280 (Del.Super.Ct. April 24, 2006) ( citing DEL CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 3322(a) (2005)).
Id.
Harris v. Mountaire Farms of Delaware., No. Civ. A. 03A-01-002, 2003 WL 22853425 (Del.Super.Ct. July 16, 2003).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Title 19, Section 3318(c) provides, in relevant part:
. . . the tribunal's decision . . . shall be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated pursuant to § 3320 of this title.
In the instant case, the record below reflects that Norris failed to file a timely appeal from the decision of the Appeals Referee to the Board. As a result, the Board did not decide her appeal based upon the merits but, rather, denied it on jurisdictional grounds. Since the Board did not address the merits of Norris's appeal, this Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Norris's case. Further, since Norris did not file her appeal with the Board in a timely fashion, she did not exhaust the administrative remedies that were available to her. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. For the reasons set forth herein, the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.