IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 
LOUIS A. ISIP, ) 
) C.A. No. 00A-06-002 
Appellant, ) 
) 
) 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEALS BOARD and ) 
BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY) 
) 
Appellee. ) 
Submitted: January 24, 2001 
Decided: April 27, 2001 
Mr. Louis Isip, Pro se. 
Baltimore Aircoil Company, Pro se. 
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal From 
Decision of the Unemployment Industrial Accident Board 
DENIED 
VAUGHN, Resident Judge 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the appellant’s briefs and the record of this case, it appears that: 

1. The appellant, Luis Isip, ("Isip") appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board ("UIAB") that he was terminated from his employment for just cause and was, 
therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 

2. Preliminarily, the Court notes that Thomas J. Peterman, assistant general counsel for the 
employer, has entered an appearance and filed a brief on the employer’s behalf. Mr. Peterman is 
not a member of the bar of this State, and no Delaware lawyer has moved his admission pro hac 
vice. His entry of appearance and brief are, therefore, stricken from the record and are not 
considered. 

3. Mr. Isip gave his testimony at the referee’s hearing. His testimony was that he was 
employed by, Baltimore Aircoil Company, from April 4, 1995 until March 31, 2000. The workplace 
was noisy and Isip wore a headset to protect his ears. On the day of the incident which led to his 
discharge, he walked near a coworker named Don Noll. He thought Noll was staring at him and it 
looked to Isip like Noll may have said something to him. However, Noll then looked away and Isip 
returned to his work area. A short time later he had to return to Noll’s work area. This time he 
thought he heard someone call his name and again saw Noll staring at him. He approached Noll and 
asked "what’s up Donny." He had to get close to Donny’s face because of the noise. Donny reacted 
angrily, saying "[i]f I had something to say to you, I would tell you right to your face." As a result 
of this incident, Isip was terminated. The employer did not appear at the referee’s hearing. On this 
record the referee found in favor of the employee. 

4. The employer appealed to the UIAB. The claimant was present at the hearing before the 
board. At that hearing, Mr. Noll testified that he noticed Isip pulling a cart, but didn’t pay much 
attention to it. Then suddenly Isip was "in his face" asking whether he, Noll, had a problem with 
him. Noll said no and Isip then asked "are you some sort of tough guy." Noll reported the incident 
to his supervisor. He testified at the hearing that he had never spoken to Isip before and that Isip had 
no reason to get "into his face." The employer’s human resource manager testified that Isip had 
been cited for two previous personal confrontation, or aggressive, behavior incidents. He testified 
that Isip had been sent to counseling after the second incident. He also testified that Isip’s conduct 
violated company policy concerning threats of violence in the workplace. 

5. On appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the scope of 
the Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the Board’s decision is 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 appellate court does 
not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. It is 
within the exclusive purview of the Board to judge the credibility of witnesses and to resolve 
conflicts in testimony. 

6. In this case, the Board found that the claimant had been dismissed for "just 
cause," which is defined as a "willful or wanton act or pattern of conduct in violation 
of the employer’s interest, the employee’s duties, or the employee’s expected standard 
of conduct." 

7. The Board accepted the testimony of Mr. Noll and the human resources 
manager and found that Isip’s behavior toward Noll was aggressive, that the employer 
had a policy prohibiting aggressive behavior, and that the claimant had been warned 
against aggressive behavior on two prior occasions. On this basis the UIAB 
concluded that the claimant’s behavior toward Mr. Noll constituted willful and wanton 
misconduct. 

8. In support of his appeal, the claimant complains that management did not 
listen to his side of the incident before discharging him, gives explanations of the prior 
incidents, and argues that he was unjustly discharged. I have carefully considered the 
points made by the claimant and reviewed the entire record. Based upon my review 
of the record, I have determined that the decision of the UIAB should be affirmed. 
The UIAB had the benefit of the evidence from both sides, whereas the referee did 
not. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that 
the claimant was aggressive, or threatening, in his conduct, that the employer had a 
policy prohibiting such conduct, and that the claimant had been warned twice 
previously concerning such conduct. One of the prior incidents was sufficient to 
move the employer to require counseling. There is no real reason to believe that the 
employer would have arrived at a different decision had it listened to the employee’s 
side before acting. At the hearing the employer’s representative expressed a 
legitimate concern about employee safety and the repetitive nature of the claimant’s 
conduct. It was not legal error for the Board to conclude that just cause existed for the 
claimant’s termination. 

9. Therefore, the decision of the UIAB is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
___________________________ 
Resident Judge 
oc: Prothonotary 
cc: Order Distribution