IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 
EDWIN D. MASANQUE, ) 
) C.A. No. 01A-06-005 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) 
) 
PLAYTEX APPAREL, INC., and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEALS BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
Submitted: March 3, 2002 
Decided: June 19, 2002 
Edwin B. Masanque, Dover, Delaware. Pro se. 
Jeremy W. Homer, Esq., Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Appellee Playtex. 
Upon Consideration of Appeal From Decision of 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
AFFIRMED 
VAUGHN, Resident Judge 

Masanque v. Playtex et al. 
C.A. No. 01A-06-005 
June 19, 2002 
ORDER 

Upon consideration of the parties briefs, and the record of the case, it appears 
that: 

1. Claimant Edwin D. Masanque appeals from a decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") which denied him unemployment benefits after 
he was terminated from his employment with Playtex Apparel, Inc ("Playtex 
Apparel"). The Board upheld the decisions of both the Claims Referee and the 
Appeals Deputy who also found in favor of the employer. 

2. The claimant began working for Playtex Apparel on January 11, 1999 as an 
order picker. Playtex has an attendance policy under which an employee will be 
terminated when he accumulates ten "occurrences." The policy is contained in a 
Human Resources Policy Manual, and it is not contended in this case that the 
claimant was unaware of the policy. Under the policy, missing a day of work and 
failing to give advance notification thereof are counted as two occurrences. Missing 
a day of work, or over half a day, is itself one occurrence. There are also fractional 
occurrences for tardiness and the like. There are various excused absences which are 
not counted, such as medical leave, funeral leave, and the like. Each employee can 
also use five vacation days each year as "emergency" days to offset an absence, not 
to exceed two days a month. Each time an employee goes three months without an 
occurrence, he earns an attendance card which can also be used to offset an 
occurrence. On the third and sixth occurrence, verbal and written counseling, 
respectively, are given by the employer. On the ninth occurrence, the employee is 

3. By September 2000 the claimant had accumulated six occurrences. On 
September 8 he received the written counseling letter referred to above. By the end 
of December 2000 he was at seven and two-thirds occurrences. In January 2001 the 
claimant used his two emergency vacation days on the 15th and 23rd. He called in that 
he would be absent on January 27, which took him to eight and two-thirds 
occurrences. He then called in that he would be absent on January 29, taking him to 
nine and two-thirds occurrences. Normally, at this point the employee would be 
required to submit a plan to improve his attendance. The employer attempted to 
contact the claimant, both directly and through members of his family who also work 
for Playtex Apparel, to foll ow this step, but was unable to reach him. On January 30 
the claimant was absent without calling in, which caused him to exceed ten 
occurrences. Since this exceeded the ten allowed, he was terminated. The claimant 
was also absent on the 31st. Based upon these facts, the Board concluded that there 
was just cause for the claimant’s termination, and benefits were denied. The claimant 
contended before the Appeals Deputy and the Board, and contends here, that he was 
sick on the 27th and 30th. He also believes he was entitled to an emergency day on the 
th. In substance, he contends that he should not have been charged with 
occurrences for those days. He was unable to provide any documentation to support 
or verify the illness that he claimed on the 27th, 29th or 31st. 

4. The limited function of this Court in reviewing an appeal from the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is to determine whether the Board's decision 
is supported by substantial evidence. 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. In other words, the Board, not the Court, 
determines the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to give their testimony, and the 
inferences to be drawn therefrom. The Court merely determines if the evidence is 
legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. Therefore, if there is 
substantial evidence for the Board's decision, the decision will be affirmed. 

5. In a termination case, an employee who is terminated for "just cause" is not 
eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Just cause concerns "a wilful or wanton 
act in violation of either the employer's interest, or of the employee's duties, or of the 
employee's expected standard of conduct." "[W]ilful or wanton conduct requires a 
showing that one was conscious of his conduct or recklessly indifferent of its 
consequences." The burden is on the employer to show that the employee was 
terminated for "just cause". "Just cause" exists where an employee violates a 
company rule or policy, especially where the employee is given notice of the rule, 
such as in a company handbook. 

6. Based upon my review of the record in this case, I am satisfied that there is 
substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that the claimant had 
accumulated in excess of ten occurrences and was properly terminated under the 
employer’s attendance policy. That same evidence also supports the Board’s 
determination that the reasons given by the claimant were insufficient and that the 
days in question were properly determined to be occurrences. In addition, the 
Board’s ultimate conclusion that the termination was made with just cause is 
supported by the evidence and is free of legal error. Therefore, the decision of the 
Board must be affirmed. 

June 19, 2002 
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED. 
Resident Judge 
oc: Prothonotary 
cc: Order Distribution