IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
DOUGLAS M. WATSON,
Appellant,
v.
FORMOSA PLASTICS CO., and the
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
APPEALS BOARD,
Appellees.
Date Submitted: April 4, 2006
Date Decided: June 9, 2006
Upon Appeal From the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Decision--AFFIRMED.
JURDEN, J.
This is the Court's decision on Douglas M. Watson's appeal of a decision
of the Unemployment In surance Appeals Board denying unemployment benefits
from Employer Formosa Plastics Co. For the reasons explained below, the
Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
FACTS
The Appeal currently before the C ourt arises from circumstances
that occurred on April 27, 2005, while D ouglas Watson (hereinafter "Mr.
Watson") was working the midnight to eight shift as a "B Operator" at the
Formosa Plastic Company (hereinafter "Formosa") S2 Reactor Building. 1 Part
of Mr. Watson's job entails droppi ng the finished polymerized material from
the reactor out to a blend tank. 2 On April 27, 2005, Mr. Watson erroneously
opened the valve of a tank in the midst of being polymerized, causing 3,415
pounds of vinyl chloride to leak into the environment. 3 Effective April 27,
2005, Mr. Watson's employment was suspended while an investigation was
conducted. 4 As of May 6, 2005, Mr. Watson's employment at Formosa was
officially terminated. 5 On May 1, 2005, Mr. Watson filed an Unemployment
Insurance Division Application for Benefits(hereinafter the "Application").
On May 23, 2005, the Application was
denied, and on June 2, 2005, that determination became final. 7 On May 31,
2005, Mr. Watson filed an Appeal Request Notification with the Division of
Unemployment Insurance.8 On June 27, 2005, a hearing was held in front of an
Appeals Referee (hereinafter the "Referee"). 9 On July 21, 2005, the Referee
mailed a decision affirm ing the denial of benefits. 10 On July 26, 2005, a
second appeal was filed, a nd on September 20, 2005, a second hearing was
held in front of three Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board members.11 On
October 27, 2005, the re sulting decision reaffirming the Referee's denial
of benefits was ma iled, and on November 6, 2005, it became final.12 On
November 10, 2005, Mr. Watson filed a timely Notice of Appeal with this
Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a decision on appeal from the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, this Court must determ ine if the
decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.14
Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion. 15 Absent an abuse of discreti on, this Court must uphold the
Board's decision.16 "As an appellate court, it [i s] not within the province
of the Superior Court to weigh the eviden ce, determine questions of
credibility or make its own factual findings." 17 The Court will only
reverse a decision of the Board if its findings are not supported by
substantial evidence, or where the Board has made a legal mistake.18
DISCUSSION
In his Superior Court Appeal, Mr. Formosa acknowledges that he
made a mistake that resulted in the Vinyl Chloride leak. Further, he
takes responsibility for his actions, but states that in his twenty-eight
years of service at Formosa, he saw similar mi stakes occur which did not
result in termination. In addition, Mr. Watson states that the mistake in
question also involved the improper actions of other employees, namely those
who did not lock the 401 reactor on the earlier shift and the "A Operator"
who did not accompany him to unlock the reactor as dictated by standard
company procedure. In his Reply Brief, Mr. Watson also states that his
"past history had nothing to do with th e reason [he] was terminated," and
he feels that he was made to be an exam ple because of an earlier incident
in Formosa's Illinois plant. In its response, Formosa states that "Mr.
Watson's Opening Brief adds nothing to the written record, and is little
more than a recap of the arguments presented at the Referee and Board
appeals," and that accordingly, his appeal should be denied. In the
alternative, Formosa states that they established sufficient facts to
support a finding of "just cause" for termination that would allow the Boar
d to deny benefits to Mr. Watson. Formosa argues that testimony agreed to
and acknowledged by Mr. Watson at the hearing shows that Mr. Watson violated
an established and clearlystated environmental safety procedure in failing
to heed the red pressureindicating light under the 401 reactor. Further,
Formosa asserts that the evidence presented is more than sufficient to meet
the standard for "just cause" termination, and the Board properly considered
the facts and circumstances as they relate to Mr. Watson. Last, Formosa
states that the result of Mr. Watson's behavior "was not minor, as it
resulted in a reportable
release incident thousands of times in excess of the reporting requirement
established by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control."
The issue in this case is whether Formosa terminated Mr.
Watson's employment with or without "just cause." "Just cause" exists where
the claimant commits a willful or wanton ac t or engages in a willful or
wanton pattern of conduct in violation of the employer's interest, his
duties to the employer or his expected standard of conduct. 28 Wanton
conduct, for purposes of determining whether claimant seeking unemployment
compensation was discharged with just cause, "is that which is heedless,
malicious, or reckless, but not done with actual intent to cause harm." 29
It is apparent from the record that in failing to observe and/or act in
accordance with the red light indicating pressu re in the 401 reactor, Mr.
Watson's behavior was heedless and reckless. Therefore, the Court finds
that Formosa meets its burden of proof on the "just cause" issue. Further,
Formosa's list of "Class A Work Rules," states that "Violation of Class `A'
Work Rules will result in immediate termination with cause." 30 Item 13A on
that list is "Knowingly by-passing or not using es tablished environmental
equipment of procedures."
In terminating Mr. Watson's employment,
Formosa was following its own establishe d procedure, as set forth in its
work rules. For the reasons set forth above, the ruling of the Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board denying Mr . Watson unemployment benefits is hereby
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________ Judge Jan R. Jurden
29 Tuttle v. Mellon Bank of Delaware, 659 A.2d 786, 789 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995). 30 D.I. 5, p. 64. 31 D.I. 5, p. 64.