IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
NORMAN KING )
)
Appellant, )
)
)
v. ) C.A. No. 02A-11-009 CHT
)
)
PATHMARK and )
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD )
)
Appellees. )
OPINION AND ORDER
On the Employee’s Appeal from the Decision
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Date Assigned: April 28, 2003
Date Decided: July 29, 2003
Norman King, pro se
Robert K. Beste, III, Esquire, WHITE & WILLIAMS LLP, 824
Market Street, Suite 902, P.O. Box 709, Wilmington, DE 19899-
0709, Attorney for Pathmark.
Stephani J. Ballard, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Carvel State Office Building, 820 North
French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for U.I.A.B.
TOLIVER, Judge

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Norman King was employed as a seafood/deli clerk by
Pathmark Stores from July 30, 2001 until June 3, 2002. The
instant controversy arises out of Mr. King’s resignation,
which occurred on June 3, 2002.
 
Throughout Mr. King’s employment at Pathmark, he suffered
from alcohol and drug dependency. Mr. King informed Mr. Bill
Gorman, the general store manager, of his addictions on March
28, 2002, and indicated that he wanted to quit his job in
order to enter a detoxification program. Mr. Gorman urged Mr.
King not to quit, but instead to seek help and then return to
his job. Mr. King subsequently attended a five day
detoxification program and returned to work on April 29, 2002.
On June 3, 2002, however, Mr. King failed to report to work.
He subsequently contacted Mr. Gorman to inform him that he
could no longer handle both work and his addictions, and would
not be returning to his job at Pathmark so that he could
attend a one year rehabilitation program. Mr. Gorman
informed Mr. King that if he was still the general manager of
that Pathmark when Mr. King completed his rehabilitation, that
he would rehire Mr. King.

On June 23, 2002, Mr. King filed a petition seeking
unemployment benefits. The claim was denied by the claims
deputy pursuant to 19 Del. C. §3315, because it was determined
that Mr. King left his unemployment for personal reasons, not
due to a good cause attributable to his work. Mr. King
appealed the decision, and a hearing occurred on August 28,
2002 before an appeals referee. The appeals referee affirmed
the claims deputy’s decision, finding that Mr. King
voluntarily quit without good cause attributable to the work.
Mr. King then appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board ("UIAB"). 

A hearing was held before the UIAB on October 23, 2002.
A four member quorum of the UIAB heard the appeal. At the
conclusion of that hearing, two members agreed with the
appeals referee that Mr. King had voluntarily left his
employment and was therefore barred from receiving workers’
compensation benefits. The remaining two members held that
Mr. King’s frustration with trying to obtain information about
his benefits did constitute good cause to quit, and that he
was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. As a
result, the Board held that the vote had no legal
significance, and the decision of the appeals referee would
stand. Accordingly, the appeals referee’s decision was
allowed to stand.

Mr. King appealed the UIAB’s decision to this Court on
November 25, 2002. He filed his opening brief on February 24,
2003. He makes four arguments: First, that he was eligible
for full time medical benefits, which included drug and
alcohol treatment at company expense. Second, that he
informed company management that he needed that treatment to
maintain acceptable levels of work performance. Third, Mr.
King alleges that he contacted union personnel and company
management on numerous occasions regarding Pathmark’s
rehabilitation program, but received no response or
information on those programs from either source. Finally,
Mr. King claims that company management customarily contacts
the union for employees who seek medical benefits, but that in
his case, Pathmark both failed to contact the union and
concealed information that was necessary for Mr. King to
access his medical benefits.

Pathmark filed a response on March 24, 2003. It argues
that the UIAB’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence, and that Mr. King voluntarily quit his job and is
therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits. Pathmark
further contends that it was indeed willing to make reasonable
accommodations to permit Mr. King to seek treatment, but Mr.
King never gave Pathmark the chance to do so. Pathmark also
denies the allegation that the company concealed information
regarding Mr. King’s medical benefits and argues that it was
not Pathmark’s responsibility to ensure that the union was
fulfilling its obligations of communication with its members.
Lastly, Pathmark argues that Mr. King did receive an employee
manual, and that document contained the information about
available medical benefits which Mr. King apparently sought.
That which follows is the Court’s disposition of the
issues so presented.

DISCUSSION

This Court is bound by the Board’s findings if supported
by substantial evidence and absent abuse of discretion or
error of law. "Substantial evidence is defined as such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." It "is more than a
scintilla and less than a preponderance" of the evidence.
This Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of
credibility or make its own findings of fact. Its function
is to determine if the evidence is legally adequate to support
the factual findings below.

Pursuant to 19 Del. C. §3315(1), an individual who is
otherwise eligible for benefits may be disqualified if "he or
she left work voluntarily without good cause." In the present
case, the UIAB was evenly divided as to whether Mr. King had
good cause to voluntarily quit his position to enter a
rehabilitation program. A review of the record persuades the
Court that the appeals referee had substantial evidence to
determine that Mr. King, frustrated with the lack of
information provided him regarding medical benefits, quit his
job for personal reasons unrelated to his employment, and
therefore without good cause. He is therefore not entitled to
unemployment compensation benefits.

First, when Mr. King first approached Mr. Gorman to tell
him of his intention to enter a drug program, he was permitted
to enter a detoxification program for five days and to return
to his job. If Mr. King later felt that additional
rehabilitation was necessary, he could have continued to seek
information regarding such treatment while maintaining his
employment. Instead, after approximately one month, Mr. King
simply failed to appear for a scheduled shift. He later
telephoned Mr. Gorman, informing him that he could no longer
balance his addiction and his job responsibilities. His
actions, though understandable, can only be classified as
personal, and not a reason attributable to his employment.

Second, though it appears that there were company-
sponsored programs for those in Mr. King’s predicament,
eligible employees were required to apply for those benefits
through the union. Mr. King’s union representation may have
been less than committed to assisting him in his quest for
rehabilitation program information, but it was not Pathmark’s
responsibility to enforce the union’s obligations to its
members. Mr. King apparently had the opportunity to obtain
for the information in question, but failed to do so.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is supported by
substantial evidence and free from legal error. As a result,
it must be, and hereby is, affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Toliver, Judge