June 20, 2002 
Richard Legates 
P.O. Box 331Milton, DE 19968 
Date Submitted: April 24, 2002 
RE: Richard Legates v. Cannery Village & Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
C.A. No. 01A-08-004Dear Mr. Legates: 
This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
(the "Board"), which affirmed the Appeals Referee’s conclusion that Richard Legates ("Appellant") 
is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

This case stems from the employment contract between Appellant and his employer, Cannery 
Village, located in Milton, Delaware. Cannery Village hired Appellant to perform maintenance work 
at the rate of $8.50 an hour in October of 2000. During his term of employment with Cannery 
Village, Appellant began to feel that the other employees were discriminating against him. On 
May 9, 2001, Appellant quit his job at Cannery Village and sought unemployment benefits. Before 
the Appeals Referee for the Department of Labor, Appellant referred to several undocumented events 
in support of his contention that he had good cause for voluntarily terminating his employment with 
Cannery Village. Appellant cited the following incidents, among other more general allegations, as 
support for a finding good cause: (1) he was involved in an on-the-job accident which resulted in a 
back injury; (2) he was threatened and generally harassed by management; and (3) he was threatened 
while on the job by a third party. The Referee made the following findings of fact: 

   This tribunal finds that the employer is a small operation with only six 
   employees including the claimant. The company was formed on October 11, 2000. 
   They are working at dismantling the old cannery and developing new homes. The 
   company is a subsidiary of Fairfield Farms. At the beginning, the employer 
   representative discussed with the claimant that he would be performing services for 
   other companies within Draper Holdings. All of the employees work this way. All 
   of the claimant’s job duties were within the maintenance person’s description. The 
   employer representative told the claimant that he would be doing maintenance work 
   all over. The claimant was not singled out. The claimant was out from work one day 
   due to a cold. That is the only medical issue that the employer was aware of. No 
   claim was filed saying that he had hurt his back. There are no written reports of any 
   accidents. 
   
   The day before the claimant quit, he went to the owner’s estate and farm and 
   fixed pipes. When he returned, he parked on the road in front of the office. The 
   other employee with him went in to turn in their receipts and then they were going 
   to the shop. The operations manager came out and seemed mad. The claimant felt 
   that the operations manager acted in a threatening manner. The next day the claimant 
   came to work. He then went to Fairfield Farms and got a list of things to do. He was 
   to mow the grass at the farm. The mower had been broken and a part had been wired 
   on. He started to mow and the part that was wired broke off. He had only driven 50 
   feet. He tied the wire up and started mowing again. The part broke off again. This 
   happened several times. He did not have any tools with him. He took the mower 
   back to the shop and parked it. He waited there and saw some strangers on the 
   propert y. It looked to him like one of the men had a shotgu n or rifle. He heard 
   someone say to get off of his farm. He left the farm and walked back to the office. 
   The employer representative asked the claimant what he was doing there. The 
   claimant was disgusted and aggravated. He did not say anything about the events of 
   that morning. He said that he would have his stuff out and he would see them in 
   court. 

The Referee concluded that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because 
he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by reporting his discontent to his employer. The 
Board adopted the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on appeal. 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

Appellant argues that the evidence in the record does not support the Board’s legal 
conclusion that he lacked good cause to justify his voluntarily termination of employment. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 
In reviewing the decisions of the Board, this Court must determine whether the Board’s 
findings and conclusions are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the 
record.2 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); Ponchvatilla v. 
United States Postal Serv., Del. Super., C.A. No. 96A-06-19, Cooch, J. (June 9, 1997), Mem. Op. 
at 2; 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) ("In any judicial proceeding under this section, t he findings of the [Board] 
as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the 
jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law."). In looking for "substantial 
evidence," the Court is lookin g for "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion." Gorrell v. Division of Vocational Rehab. and Unemployment Ins. 
Appeal Bd., Del.Super., C.A. No. 96A-01-001, Graves, J. (July 31, 1996), Letter Op. at 4. Moreover, 
"[i]t is not the a ppellate co urt's role t o weigh the evidence, determine credibility questions or make 
its own factual findings, but merely to decide if the evidence is legally adequate to support the 
agency's factual findings." McManus v. Christina Service Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 96A-06- 013, 
Silverman, J. (Jan. 31, 1997), Opinion and Order at 4. 

B. The Right to Unemployment Benefits 
Section 3315 of Title 19 of the Delaware Code provides, in relevant part: 
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 

(1) For the week in which the individual left work voluntarily without good cause 
attributable to such work and for each week thereafter until the individual has been 
employed in each of 4 subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned 
wages in covered employment equal to not less than 4 times the weekly benefit 
amount. 

Under this section, the claimant has the burden of proving "good cause." Longobardi v. 
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 287 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. 1971). Unless an employee does 
"something akin to exhausting his administrative remedies by, for example, seeking to have the 
situation corrected by proper notice to his employer," good cause to quit one’s job does not exist 
"merely because there is an undesirable or unsafe situation connected with his employment." 
O’Neal’s Bus Serv., Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 269 A.2d 247, 249 (Del. Super. 1970). 
Appellant testified that he was d isgruntled with the conditions, some general and some 
specific, of his employment with Cannery Village. However, Appellant did not give his employer 
any notice as to his complaints with his employment prior to walking off the job. Without notice, 
Cannery Village cannot be held responsible for Appellant’s willful termination of his employment. 

After a review of the record, the Court is satisfied that the Board’s findings and decision are 
supported by substantial evidence and are free from legal error. For the foregoing reasons, the 
decision of the Board denying unemployment benefits is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Very Truly Yours, 
T. Henley Graves
cc: Prothonotary’s Office 
Cannery Village, attn: Dennis Sabato