Opinion
C.A. No: 14A-05-003 ESB
10-09-2014
RE: Stout v. AJM Enterprises, Inc.
Charles A.R. Stout, Sr. P.O. Box 220 Frankford, DE 19945 Mike Meoli AJM Enterprises, Inc. 19545 Camelot Drive, Suite A Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Charles A.R. Stout, Sr.
P.O. Box 220
Frankford, DE 19945
Mike Meoli
AJM Enterprises, Inc.
19545 Camelot Drive, Suite A
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Dear Messrs. Stout and Meoli:
This is my decision on Charles Stout's appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's finding that he is not entitled to unemployment benefits because he quit his job without good cause. Stout worked as a swing manager for two years at AJM Enterprises, Inc.'s McDonald's restaurant in Selbyville, Delaware. On December 23, 2013, Stout drove up to the drive through window at the McDonald's restaurant where he worked and handed the swing manager on duty (1) his keys to the restaurant, (2) his McDonald's uniforms, and (3) a doctor's note excusing him from work for three days. Stout call AJM a few days later to see when he was next scheduled to work. Stout was told that he was not scheduled to work agin. Stout thought he had been fired. AJM thought Stout had quit. Stout then filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy, Appeals Referee, and Board all denied Stout's claim for unemployment benefits, reasoning that he was not entitled to them because he had quit his job without good cause. Stout then filed an appeal with this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. On appeal from a decision of the Board, this Court is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support the Board's findings, and that such findings are free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Board's findings are conclusive and will be affirmed if supported by " competent evidence having probative value." The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board of the Dept. Of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp, 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. 1986), app. dism., 515 A.2d 397 (Del. 1986).
Geegan v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 76 A.2d 116, 117 (Del. Super. 1950).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
Dallachiesa v. General Motors Corp., 140 A.2d 137 (Del. Super. 1958).
--------
DISCUSSION
Stout was scheduled to work at 4:00 p.m. on December 23, 2013. Stout spoke with Mike Meoli before turning in his keys and uniforms. Meoli is the owner of the McDonald's restaurant where Stout worked. Stout called Meoli on the phone a little after noon and told Meoli that he had strained his back and would not be able to come in to work that night. Meoli told Stout that he really needed him to come to work because the manager was on vacation and it was the busy holiday season. Stout told Meoli that he would be there. Meoli did not tell Stout that he would be suspended or fired if he did not come to work. About an hour later, Stout appeared at the drive through window and turned in his keys and uniforms to Jeff Haeffner, the swing manager on duty. Haeffner asked Stout if he was going to quit. Stout said that he was going to. AJM thought Stout had quit so he was removed from the schedule. Thus, when Stout called on December 26, 2013, to see when he was next scheduled to work, he had no days scheduled. Stout turned in his keys and uniforms because he thought he was going to be suspended or fired for not coming to work. Christopher Hawkins is the area manager for AJM. Hawkins is the supervisor of the general manager of the McDonald's restaurant where Stout worked. The general manager was on vacation on December 23, 2013. Thus, Hawkins would have been the person to deal with Stout. However, Stout never asked to talk to Hawkins. Hawkins told the Board that AJM does not require a manager to turn in his keys and uniforms if he is suspended. Hawkins also told the Board that he did not tell Stout that he would be suspended or fired if he did not come to work. Hawkins also submitted AJM's employee handbook to the Board. It provides that an employee gets a written warning for a first offense, a suspension for a second offense, and termination for a third offense. Hawkins also told the Board that this would have been Stout's first offense, making him subject to just a written warning. Stout did have a copy of the employee handbook.
The Board made two findings. One, the Board found that Stout voluntarily quit his job. The Board made this finding because Stout turned in his keys and uniform. The Board found that this was voluntary because no one at AJM told Stout that he would be suspended or fired for not coming to work on December 23, 2013. Two, the Board found that Stout quit his job without good cause. The Board reached this finding because Stout never clarified his status before quitting. Thus, the Board reasoned that Stout quit without exhausting his administrative remedies at work. I have concluded that the Board's findings are in accordance with the applicable law and based upon substantial evidence in the record. Turning in your work keys and uniforms through the drive through window of the restaurant where you work without being told that you will be suspended or fired if you do not come to work is certainly excellent evidence of your desire to quit and not return to work. It is also an unusual way to deal with an employment issue. Stout's failure to discuss this matter with his supervisor also evidences his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies at work. Stout should have called his supervisor to clarify his status. Instead, he simply assumed that he would be suspended or fired for not coming to work. AJM's belief that Stout had quit his job is reasonable and well-supported by Stout's rather unusual behavior.
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ E. Scott Bradley
E. Scott Bradley
ESB/sal
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Parties
UIAB