Connor v. Techclean Industries, Ltd. and UIAB 
C.A. No. 03A-04-005-JRJ 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWRE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
JOHN DAVID CONNOR, ) 
) 
Employee-Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 03A-04-005 JRJ 
) 
TECHCLEAN INDUSTRIES, LTD )
)
Employer-Appellee )
)
and )
)
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD, )
)
Appellee. )
Date Submitted: November 3, 2003 
Date Decided: January 27, 2004 
O R D E R 
On Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Decision AFFIRMED. 
JURDEN, J. 

Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record in this case, it 
appears to the Court that: 

Procedural History 

1. Appellant John David Connor ("Connor" or "claimant") appeals from a 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB" or "Board") which 
denied him benefits. 

2. Connor was employed as an air duct cleaning foreman by TechClean 
Industries, Ltd. ("TechClean" or "employer") from approximately 1995 until November 
8, 2002, when he was placed on thirty (30) days of suspension for allegedly failing to 
show up for work on November 4 and November 8, 2002. After the employer called the 
claimant on November 8th and issued a letter of suspen sion dated Novem ber 11, 2 002, Connor filed a 
claim for unemployment benefits on November 17, 2002. 

3. On January 3, 2003, a Claims Deputy determined that Connor was not 
entitled to unemployment benefits because he was on disciplinary suspension at the time 
he filed his claim. 

4. Connor appealed this decision and an Appeals Referee held a hearing on 
February 10, 2003. The employer did not attend this hearing, and the Referee 
determined that the claimant was constructively discharged and therefore qualified for 
benefits.

5. The employer appealed the Referee’s decision to the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board and the Board held a hearing on March 26, 2003. The Board 
reversed and held that Connor abandoned his job without good cause and was therefore 
disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits. This appeal followed. 

Standard of Review 

6. In reviewing a decision on appeal from the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board, this Court must determine if the decision is supported by substantial 
evidence and is free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant 
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Absent 
an abuse of discretion, this Court must uphold the Board’s decision. 

7. "Questions of credibility are exclusively within the province of the Board 
which heard the evidence. As an appellate court, it [is] not within the province of the 
Superior Court to weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility or make its own 
factual findings." The Court will only reverse a decision of the Board if its findings are 
not supported by substantial evidence, or where the Board has made a legal mistake. 

8. Connor asserts that he was effe ctively discharged from employment 
because TechClean demanded that he work in New York on Friday November 8, 2002 
when the employer knew that Connor had to take care of his son that weekend and would 
not be able to travel to New York. In support of this assertion, Connor also suggests 
that the employer canceled his health insurance and placed him on suspension just before 
he was about to have surgery on his shoulder.
 
9. Joseph Laterza, testifying for the employer, stated that Connor was not 
fired but was placed on temporary suspension effective November 8, 2002. TechClean 
issued the suspen sion becaus e Connor had a period of no shows during two weeks and 
the employer was unable to reach Connor on the phone, even though the employer paid 
for Connor’s cell phone so he would be on call. In addition, Laterza testified that he did 
not ask Connor to work the whole weekend of November 8, 2002. Instead, the employer 
wanted Connor to drive up to New York that Friday morning, but told Connor he could 
return to Delaware by that afternoon.
 
10. Laterza also testified that he went to Connor’s home during the suspension 
in order to collect certain items that were owned by the employer. At this time Laterza 
claims that he told the claimant "the door is open finish your suspension let me know 
what you want to do and you can come back to work." But after the suspension 
TechClean never heard from Connor again. 

11. Connor denied that he was told to contact the employer after the 
suspension. The claimant was under the impression that the employer would contact 
him after the suspension period terminated and after he was cleared to work by his 
doctor. This misunderstanding is clear from Connor’s Notice of Appeal to the Referee 
in which he states, "I was able to return to work but was not called back. So I took it as 
they fired me." 

12. The Board found that the employer had just cause for the suspension. 
The Court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion. 
In this case, the Board’s determination hinged on the credibility of the witnesses, and 
"questions of credibility are exclusively within the province of the Board." The Board 
found Laterza’a testimony to be credible, and Connor admitted that he was told to give 
Laterza a call if he wanted to talk. The Board’s decision, in pertinent part, states the 
following: 

   The Board also accepts as credible employer’s testimony that he told claimant to 
   call in and that he could report back to work after the suspension. Even claimant 
   admitted that Laterza told him to give him a call during the suspension period. 
   
   While there may have been some miscommunication, the Board finds that it was 
   incumbent upon claimant to call his employer to attempt to return to work or at 
   least find out the status of his job. Having failed to do so, claimant effectively 
   abandoned his job without good cause. Accordingly, the Board finds that 
   claimant is disqualified from the receipt of benefits. 

13. On appeal, Connor argues "[I] did not abandon my job, I waited for Tech 
Clean to call me in regards to coming back to work."25 But the Board’s decision that "it 
was incumbent upon claimant to call his employer to attempt to return to work or at least 
find out the status of his job" is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal 
error. Unemployment is for the benefit of persons who are unemployed through no fault 
of their own and are sincerely cooperating to end their unemployment. By failing to 
contact his employer when his thirty (30) day suspension ended, Connor was not 
sincerely cooperating to end his unemployment. 

14. A decision by an administrative agency is not an abuse of discretion 
"unless it is based on clearly unreasonable or capricious grounds," or the agency 
"exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored recognized 
rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice."27 The Board’s determination, after 
considering Connor’s proffered reasons for his belief that he was fired, that it was the 
claimant’s responsibility to contact his employer once his suspension ended, is not an 
abuse of discretion. 

15. For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Board is supported by 
substantial evidence, is free from legal error, and is not an abuse of discretion. 
The deci sion of the Board is hereby AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Jan R. Jurden, Judge