IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
KENNETH M. FLOWERS, ) 
Appellant/Claimant, ) 
) 
) 
) C.A. No. 00A-11-002 (CHT) 
) 
LAIDLAW CORPORATION ) 
Appellee/Employer, ) 
and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
Appellee/Board. ) 
OPINION AND ORDER 
On the Employee’s Appeal from the Decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
Date Assigned: July 24, 2001 
Date Decided: November 2, 2001 
Kenneth M. Flowers, pro se, P.O. Box 481, Wilmington, DE 
19899. 
Robert C. McDonald, Esquire, SILVERMAN & MCDONALD, 1010 North 
Bancroft Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware 19805. 
TOLIVER, Judge 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS 

Kenneth Flowers was employed as both a "racker"1 and a 
"packer"2 of metal clothes hangers for Laidlaw Corporation 
(Laidlaw) from May of 1998 until August 2, 2000. The events 
that ultimately culminated in the termination of the 
employment relationship between Mr. Flowers and Laidlaw began 
on the Friday, July 28, 2000, 3 p.m.-11 p.m. shift at Laidlaw. 
On that date, Mr. Flowers reported for his shift and began 
performing his duties as a "packer". Shortly thereafter, 
another Laidlaw employee, who normally worked in a different 
department, began to work in Mr. Flowers’ area as a "racker". 
This upset Mr. Flowers because, according to him, "packing" 
is a much more strenuous and tedious job than is "racking". 
From what the Court can gather from the record, the duties of a 
"racker" are to put metal clothes hangers in an unfinished state onto 
or into a machine that ultimately produces the finished clothes 
hangers.

The duties of a "packer" are apparently to retrieve the 
finished clothes hangers from the machine mentioned in footnote 1, 
measure them and then pack them in the appropriate box based upon the 
size of the clothes hanger.

Moreover, the normal progression in terms of job assignments, 
is for employees new to the department to begin with the 
harder jobs, namely "packing", and then proceed to the easier 
"racking" jobs. Mr. Flowers was further distressed when he 
overheard the new employee bragging of immediately being given 
a "racking" position thereby foregoing the aforementioned 
progression. 

Mr. Flowers next reported to work on the following 
Monday, July 31, 2000. When he reported to work, he found 
that the new employee had arrived twenty minutes late for work 
and was once again assigned to "racking" duties. Mr. Flowers 
approached a supervisor to inquire as to why the new employee 
was not assigned the more taxing "packing" duties as was the 
custom at Laidlaw. The Supervisor took Mr. Flowers to the 
office, where a more senior manager told Mr. Flowers that the 
new employee was assigned to "racking" because he did not know 
who to "pack". 

Mr. Flowers, refused to accept the manager’s explanation, 
and told him that he was not going back to work until he 
received a satisfactory response. The manager then told Mr. 
Flowers to either go back to work or to go home. Mr. Flowers 
went home, never to return except to pick up his paycheck. 

Mr. Flowers filed for unemployment compensation on August 
6, 2000. The Claims Deputy found that Mr. Flowers voluntarily 
quit his position and denied his petition. In that regard, 
the Claims Deputy’s report indicates that Mr. Flowers admitted 
to voluntarily terminating his employment because he was 
passed over for a job by another employee, despite the fact 
that Mr. Flowers was more qualified, and also because he was 
threatened by Laidlaw management with termination. Mr. 
Flowers appealed that decision to the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the Deputy’s decision and 
agreed that Mr. Flowers voluntarily quit without good cause. 

Mr. Flowers now appeals the decision of the Board. His 
sole contention is that the Board committed legal error 
because it did not demand the presence of a representative of 
Laidlaw at the hearing. Laidlaw has filed no response to Mr. 
Flowers’ appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

In reviewing a decision of the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board, this Court is bound by its findings if supported 
by substantial evidence and absent abuse of discretion or 
error of law.

Mr. Flowers contends that the Board erred by conducting 
the hearing without the presence of a Laidlaw representative. 
This contention is supported by no legal citation. However, 
19 Del. C. §3321(a) provides: 

   [t]he manner in which disputed claims shall 
   be presented and the conduct of hearings 
   and appeals shall be in accordance with 
   regulations prescribed by the Unemployment 
   Insurance Appeal Board for determining the 
   rights of the parties. . . . 

In this regard, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Rule B 
states in relevant part: 

   [a]ll parties are required to be present 
   for a hearing at the scheduled time. Any 
   party who is not present within 10 minutes 
   after the scheduled time for hearing shall 
   be deemed to waive his right to participate 
   in said hearing and the hearing shall 
   commence without the presence of the party. 

 Del. Dept. of Labor, U.I.A.B. Rules and Regulations, Rule B 
(1979)(emphasis added). It is abundantly clear from a reading 
of this rule that there is no such requirement that all 
 parties be present for the hearing to commence. To the 
contrary, the Board is required to start the hearing despite 
the absence of one of the parties. Therefore, Mr. Flowers 
assertion that the Board erred as a matter of law is without 
merit. 

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the above, the Court finds that the decision 
of Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is free from legal 
error as asserted. Accordingly, it must be, and hereby is 
affirmed. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
______________________ 
Toliver, Judge