IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
ATLANTIS COMMUNICATIONS, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 03A-07-006-FSS 
) 
WILLIAM WEBB, ) 
) 
Defendant. ) 
Submitted: February 19, 2004 
Decided: May 28, 2004 
OPINION AND ORDER 
R. Stokes Nolte, Esquire, Nolte & Brodoway, P.A., Three Mill Road, Suite 304 
Wilmington, Delaware, 19806. Attorney for Appellant. 
Mary Page Bailey, Esquire, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 6th 
Floor, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Deputy Attorney General for the U.I.A.B. 
Mr. William Webb, 15113 Fleming Landing, Milton, Delaware, 19968. Pro Se 
Appellee. 
SILVERMAN, J.

This is an appeal by Atlantis Communications from the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board’s decision reversing an appeals referee’s denial of benefits 
to William Webb. Although Atlantis provided three main reasons for terminating 
Claimant’s employment, the Board curtly mentioned only two of them in its decision. 
Essentially, the Board found no just cause for Claimant’s dismissal despite Claimant’s 
alleged insubordination and responsibility for missing inventory. The Board failed, 
however, to address Atlantis’s claim that Claimant’s overall performance was 
unsati sfactory. Although the Board enjoys autonomy in fact-finding, the court cannot 
review the Board’s decision without better understanding the Board’s reasoning. 

I. 

Atlantis employed Claimant in several capacities from April 3, 2000 
until January 20, 2003. Most recently, as a regional director, Claimant’s 
responsibilities included coordinating technicians’ work, organizing inventory returns 
and handling customers’ damage claims. As mentioned, Atlantis contends it 
discharged Claimant because he was insubordinate, failed to perform work duties and 
engaged in acts of indiscretion. All of these things, says Atlantis, were willful and 
wanton acts that violated Claimant’s expected standard of conduct. 

Claimant’s alleged insubordination stemmed from his missing work and 
failing to follow procedure in notifying supervisors of absences. Even after being 
warned on several occasions that he must telephone his supervisor directly to report 
absences, Claimant often called subordinates or emailed his supervisor well after 
Claimant should have reported to work. Claimant was to be at work by 7:00 a.m. in 
order to issue equipment and work orders to his technicians before they left for their 
work sites between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. 

When at work, Claimant’s performance allegedly was unsatisfactory. 
While Claimant was responsible for inventory, nearly $40,000 worth of it went 
missing. One cause of the discrepancy was Claimant’s failure to make proper 
inventory returns. Claimant allowed returns to collect at the warehouse, which 
distorted Atlantis’s inventory figures. Claimant was aware of the proper procedure, 
which he followed up until a few months before Atlantis let him go. 
Claimant also failed to properly handle customer claims for damage done 
by technicians. Regional directors were required to handle these claims, and all 
claims were to be settled within 72 hours. At the time of Claimant’s discharge, there 
were some claims dating back almost five or six months. Again, Claimant was aware 
of the proper procedure. 

Finally, Atlantis presented evidence highlighting several acts of 
indiscretion by Claimant. Approximately four months before being terminated, 
Claimant allegedly had a personal relationship with a subordinate. On one occasion, 
the two went to lunch and remained out of the office beyond their allotted hour. 
Upon returning, Claimant signed off on the subordinate’s time sheet, indicating she 
had only been gone one hour. Claimant also got into verbal confrontations with 
Atlantis’s human resources director and at least once slammed his office door closed 
after becoming frustrated. 

II. 

An appeals referee heard the case on March 17, 2003, and found 
Claimant ineligible for benefits. The appeals referee based her decision on 19 Del. 
C. § 3315(2),1 which details when discharged employees are disqualified from 
benefits. The appeals referee found just cause for Claimant’s discharge, due mostly 
to insubordination and failure to fulfill job responsibilities. The appeals referee’s 
decision is lengthy and includes a detailed factual history of the case. 

Claimant then appealed to the Board, which held a hearing and rendered 
a decision on June 18, 2003. The Board considered the evidence previously 
presented to the appeals referee and heard testimony from both parties. Witnesses for 
Claimant testified that Atlantis employees were allowed to work from home and that 
there were problems with the company’s in ventory tracking system. Atlantis’s 
witness was an inventory control person who testified about the $40,000 inventory 
error, which dated back to October 2002, and that when the inventory control person 
was hired, the invento ry tracking system worked. 

The Board decided: 

   Having heard the testimony of the new witnesses presented 
   by the claimant, the Board concludes that claimant was 
   permitted to work at home. It appears from the record 
   below that the claimant attempted to let his employer know 
   about absences due to illness by e-mail. He was trying to 
   do the job required by his employer, but he was hampered 
   by an ineffective inventory tracking system. There was no 
   evidence that the claimant was responsible for any missing 
   inventory. 

After citing the standard for "just cause," the Board added: 

   Neither the absenteeism nor the inability to perform the job 
   demonstrates willful or wanton conduct in this case. The 
   employer has some responsibility for the inaccurate 
   inventory records because of the system deficiencies. 

Thus, on July 20, 2003, the Board reversed the appeals referee’s decision and found 
Claimant eligible for benefits. Atlantis then filed this appeal. 

III. 

The standard of review for a decision of the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board is whether the Board’s findings and conclusions are supported by 
substantial evidence and free from legal error. "Substantial evidence means such 
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion." The Board, not the reviewing court, shall weigh the credibility of 
witnesses and resolve conflicts in testimony. The Board’s decision should provide 
the reviewing court with the Board’s holding and reasoning. If there is substantial 
evidence and no legal error, the Board’s decision will be affirmed. 
An individual is disqualified for benefits where "the individual was 
discharged from the individual’s work for just cause in connection with the 
individual’s work " The term "just cause" refers to a "wilful or wanton act in 
violation of. . .the employee’s expected standard of conduct." Wilful or wanton 
conduct requires a showing that "one was conscious of his conduct or recklessly 
indifferent of its consequences. . .[but] [i]t need not necessarily connote bad motive. 
. .or malice." 

IV. 

As previously mentioned, the Board enjoys autonomy in fact-finding. 
Its curt opinion, however, is inadequate because it fails to address some material 
allegations at all, and the way it discusses other issues is incomplete. The court 
cannot review the decision without more explanation and reasoning to consider. 
The record indicates that until approximately four months before being 
let go, Claimant was an average employee, at least, and possibly even a good one. At 
that point, however, Claimant changed, leading to the accusations in this case. The 
court is not satisfied that the Board took into account the change. The Board does not 
mention the personal relationship between Claimant and his subordinate, the 
allegedly falsified time sheet, Claimant’s lackluster handling of customer damage 
claims, and the confrontations between Claimant and his coworkers. Falsifying 
another’s time sheet may be an isolated incident or it may itself be a willful or wanton 
act justifying discharge and disqualification. The Board must determine whether 
Claimant falsified a time sheet and if so, whether the Board considers it harmless and 
why. 

Regarding Claimant’s alleged insubordination, the Board found without 
explanation that "claimant was permitted to work at home." This is troubling in light 
of Atlantis’s seemingly unrefuted evidence that Claimant’s job responsibilities 
required him to be at work every morning. The Board also repeats a stipulated fact 
that Claimant attempted to let his supervisor know about absences by email. The 
Board does not explain, however, why Claimant’s emailing, rather than telephoning, 
his supervisor did not amount to insubordination and just cause for dismissal. 
Regarding the inventory issue, the Board says only that Claimant was "hampered by 
an ineffective inventory tracking system" and no evidence showed Claimant’s 
responsibility for missing inventory. Yet, Atlantis’s witness at the Board hearing 
spoke to that very thing. The Board’s decision seemingly ignored Atlantis’s witness. 

Finally, the Board recognizes Claimant’s poor job performance, but merely states, 
again without explanation, that it does not demonstrate willful or wanton conduct. 
Claimant knew the proper procedure for reporting absences and making 
inventory returns, and he must have known that falsifying a time sheet and angrily 
slamming an office door is not acceptable workplace behavior.13 Therefore, it is 
possible, as the appeals referee concluded, that Claimant acted willfully and wantonly 
under the circumstances. Again, the court is concerned that the Board recognized 
Claimant’s chronic absenteeism and inadequate job performance, yet failed to explain 
why that was not cause for dismissal. 

V. 

For the foregoing reasons, the July 20, 2003 decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board awarding unemployment benefits is 
REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration and clarification as called for 
here. Under current administrative practice, on remand either party is entitled to a 
new hearing.
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge