SUP E RIO R C OUR T

OF THE

STA TE OF DE LA WA RE

T. Henl ey Graves SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE Re sident Judge THE CIR CLE

P .O . B OX 746 GEORG ETO W N, DE 1 9 9 4 7

(302) 856-52 57

May 14, 2004

Dante G. Molinaro 28909 Poplar Grove Drive Milton, DE 19968

Mary Page Bailey , Esq. State Office Building 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Molinaro vs. Unemployment Insurance Appeal B oard and R&R Sports Complex

C.A. No. 03A-10-002 THG

DATE SUBMITTED: April 22, 2004

Dear Mr. Mol ina ro an d Ms . Bai ley:

This is the Court's decision on Dante G. Molinaro's ("Appellant") appeal of the Unemployme nt Insurance Appeal Board' s ("the Board" ) decision that App ellant was inelig ible for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board's decision is aff irmed for the reasons stated herein.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant was employed by R&R Sports Complex ( "Employer") fro m April 200 2 through January 2003 as a part-time sales clerk in the tackle shop. Employer operates a seas onal business

and reduces employment during the winter months. Appellant was not guaranteed any set number of hours per week. On December 30, 2003, Employer suspended Appellant from work. Employer expected Appellant to return to work on January 20, 2003. Appellant did not return to employment after the suspension because he was unhappy that his hours had been cut back. Appellant testified

2

that it didn't make any sense for him to go to work for 7 hours a week. Appellant viewed the cut back in h is working hours as a ploy to get him to quit. However, Employ er maintained that

Appellant would have continued to be employed had he returned after his suspension.

After a hearing by the Board, Appellant was declared ineligible for unemploymen t benefits as he had voluntarily quit without good cause.

STANDARD OF REVI EW The Supreme Court a nd this Court repea tedly have e mphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency . The function of the reviewing Court is to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, Johnson v. Chrysler Corp. , 312 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965); General Motors v. Freeman , 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960), and to review questions of law de novo. In re Beattie , 180 A.2d 741, 744 ( Del. Super. Ct. 1962). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores , 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del . 1994); Battista v. Chrsyler Corp. , 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del.), app. dism. , 515

A.2d 397 (Del. 1986). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. Johnson , 213 A.2d at 66. I t merely de termines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the age ncy's factual findings and whether errors of law exist. 19 Del. C. $ 3323.

DISCUSSION The findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidenc e in the record. Delaware law states that an individual will be di squalified from r eceiving unemp loyment bene fits:

(1) [f]or the week in which the individu al left work volunt arily withou t good cause

3

attributable to such work... 19 Del. C. $ 3315(a).

The burden is on the claimant to show good cause existed for voluntarily terminating employment. Longobardi v. Unem ployment Insuranc e Appeal Board , 287 A.2d 690 (Del. Super. 1971). "Good cause can include a substantial reduction in wages, work hours or a substantial deviation in the working conditions from the original agreement of hire to the detriment of the employee." Weathersby v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. , 1995 WL 465326 (Del.Super. 1995),

citing Moore v. Fulton Paper Co. , Del. Super. Ct., C.A. No. 94A-06- 004, Gebelein, J. (Dec. 2, 1994).

The Board was w ell within its discre tion to determine th at Appellant did no t meet his burden of showing good cause for leaving his employ ment. The Board found that Appellant worked part-time, knowing and understanding the seasonal nature of Employ er's business, and was not guaranteed any set number of hours per w eek. The Board concluded that Appellant agreed, as a condition of hire, that he would be given hours as they were available and that there would be less hours available in the off-season. The Board found that these conditions had not changed.

Appellant does not argue that the B oard committed an y errors of law in reaching its decision. Appella nt's argument on appeal is that the Board was conf used. Appellant' s focus is

on the merits of his c laim, in that he dese rved to receive benefits becaus e Employer w as unfair and unjust and that he was `forced' to quit. Appellant's arguments are not supported by evidence on the record. I n fact, Appellan t's own statements show that he did not r eturn to work afte r his suspension because he was unhappy with the reduction in his hours. That, by itself, does not

4

amount to good cause. See White v. Security Link , 658 A.2d 619 (Del. Super. 1994)

As the Court is bound b y the Boar d's findings of f act in the absenc e of fraud and if supported by the evidence, this Court must affirm the Board's decision. Since there is substantial evidence, the Court must uphold its determination. Thus, in light of the foregoing, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appea l Board is affirmed.

Very truly yours,

T. Henley Graves jfg

oc: Prothonotary cc: Unemployment Insurance Appeal B oard

R&R Sports Center