Opinion
C. A. No. 99A-08-001CHT
Submitted: March 30, 2000
Decided: July 3, 2000
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Wilbur Reid, Jr., Appellant, is pro se.
O'CONNELL Speedy Printing is pro se.
James J. Hanley, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, is representing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
This matter is presently before the Court as an appeal by Wilbur Reid, Jr. from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, denying Mr. Reid unemployment benefits following the termination of his employment with O'Connell Speedy Printing.
FACTS
Mr. Reid was employed by O'Connell Speeding Printing ("Employer") as a pressman. He became dissatisfied with his working conditions allegedly because he felt that his supervisor was watching him work. As a result, Mr. Reid informed his supervisor five times during a six week period that he was going to quit his job, but did not follow through with these threats. The sixth time he indicated that he was going to leave, the Employer accepted his resignation and filled Mr. Reid's position. Shortly therefore, Mr. Reid applied for unemployment compensation benefits from the Board.
The matter was first presented to a claims deputy, who, after reviewing the record, determined Mr. Reid voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his work. He was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3315 (1). The appeals referee agreed and rejected the petition on May 24, 1999 as well. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed both decisions on July 30, 1999. This appeal was lodged shortly thereafter.
§ 3315(1), in relevant part reads:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(1) For the week in which the individual left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. . . .
This appeal followed and is based on two contentions. First, Mr. Reid claims that he is entitled to unemployment benefits because his resignation was justifiable and supported by good cause based upon all the circumstances involved. That contention is based upon his view of his treatment at the job site and the employer's failure to accommodate his hearing disability. Second, Mr. Reid asserts that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board erred in its decision because it failed to consider a psychological report prepared by Christiana Care.
The Employer did not file an answering brief to Mr. Reid's claims.
DISCUSSION
"The scope of review of this Court of the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, like the scope of review in appeals from the Industrial Accident Board, is limited to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence sufficient to support the findings." Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. of Dept. of Labor v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308, 308-309 (1975). "Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Anchor Motor Freight v. Ciabattoni, Del. Super., 716 A.2d 154, 156 (1998); Street v. State, Del. Supr., 669 A.2d 9, 11 (1995); and Olney v. Cooch, Del. Supr., 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981).
As to the first claim that the Board erred in not finding good cause for his voluntary resignation, Mr. Reid alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment that essentially forced him to quit his job. He points to two specific aspects of his employment to support that contention. The first concerns harassment by his supervisor. The second relates to a failure to accommodate his hearing disability. The law is reasonably clear in this regard. "The burden of proof to show `good cause' for voluntarily terminating employment is upon the claimant." Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., 287 A.2d 690, 692 (1971), aff'd, Del. Supr., 293 A.2d 295 (1972). "Good cause for quitting a job must be such cause as would justify one in voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed." O'Neals Bus Serv., Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n., Del. Super., 269 A.2d 247, 249 (1970).
The harassment by his supervisor apparently consisted of the supervisor watching everything Mr. Reid did and evidencing a negative attitude toward him. However, a review of the record reveals that the supervision of Mr. Reid was not extraordinary or conducted in a negative fashion. Mr. Reid's supervisor did in fact, watch him work, and at times, told Mr. Reid when the work day had ended. There is no showing that the treatment Mr. Reid received from his supervisor justified was such that it created a hostile work environment or otherwise cause him to leave his job.
Indeed, just the opposite seems to have been the case. The Employer stated that Mr. Reid was a good worker and that he was happy with the work that he was doing. In fact, the record shows that the Employer actively pursued a course of action in an attempt to make Mr. Reid happy so he would not quit his job. If anything, Mr. Reid's hostility toward the supervisor is the prominent attitude reflected in the record.
Mr. Reid also claims that the Employer's failure to provide an interpreter to aid in his communications on the job because of his hearing disability constitutes good cause for his voluntary termination. Notwithstanding this contention, the record reflects that he was able to communicate with his employer without a great deal of difficulty. Those who worked by Mr. Reid were able to understand what he said, and Mr. Reid was able to read lips. Further, when communication became difficult between the two, they were able to communicate by writing down their thoughts on paper. There was no indication of such an inability to communicate that an interpreter was needed. The Board's decision that Mr. Reid voluntarily terminated his employment was therefore supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, Mr. Reid claims that the Board erred in its decision by not taking into consideration a psychological report prepared by Christiana Care in support of his case. However, this Court must assume that the letter was not presented before the Board, because it is not a part of the record that was filed with this Court. The function of this Court is to review questions of law from the Board's decision, not to evaluate new evidence. "Upon appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits, the Superior Court is limited to consideration of the record which was before the administrative agency." Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Supr., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (1976); 19 Del. C. § 3323. Stated differently, because there is no indication in the record that the evidence was presented to the Board, the Court must conclude that the Board did not err in failing to consider the report in question.
CONCLUSION
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that the supervision of Mr. Reid and the absence of an interpreter on the job site did not constitute good cause for voluntary termination of his employment. Furthermore, this Court may not address the issue of error by the Board for not adequately weighing the psychological report, because the report is not in the record.