IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
VINCENT L. SMALLWOOD, SR., )
) C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALLIED WASTE NORTH
)
AMERICA, INC.,
)
)
Appellee.
)
Submitted: September 1, 2010
Decided: December 30, 2010
Vincent L. Smallwood, Sr., Marydel, Maryland. Pro Se.
Allied Waste North America, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri. Pro Se.
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal of
Decision of Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
AFFIRMED
VAUGHN, President Judge
Smallwood v. Allied Waste
C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
December 30, 2010
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief and the record of the case, it
appears that:1
1.
Vincent L. Smallwood, Sr. appeals an Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board decision that found just cause for his discharge from employment at Allied
Waste North America, Inc., and held that he was therefore disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Based on the appellant’s submissions and the record of the
case, the Court affirms the Board’s decision.
2.
The appellant began working as a mechanic for Allied Waste on January
27, 1997. The employer, Allied Waste, contends that the appellant was terminated
after two employees, Clayton and Karen Byerly, watched him take tires from the
employer’s shed, place them in a service truck and unload them at a tire yard. To
support this contention, Allied Waste presented the testimony of the Byerlys’, as
eyewitnesses, and introduced a video showing the appellant removing tires from a
shed.
3.
The appellant was terminated on August 27, 2008. He filed for
unemployment in Maryland and received benefits for twenty six weeks. In order to
receive his remaining benefits, the appellant applied for an extension in Delaware on
March 1, 2009. He received benefits for approximately one month before they were
stopped. A Claims Deputy found that Allied Waste proved that the appellant was
guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct, and thus disqualified the appellant from
1
The appellee declined to file a brief.
2
Smallwood v. Allied Waste
C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
December 30, 2010
receiving unemployment benefits. An Appeals Referee affirmed, holding that the
appellant was terminated for just cause in connection with his work. The appellant
appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. A hearing was held on
August 12, 2009, and the Board issued its opinion on December 10, 2009. The Board
affirmed the decisions below and concluded that the appellant was terminated for just
cause and was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. The instant appeal
followed.
4.
The appellant argues that Mr. Byerly manufactured his story in order to
cause the appellant’s termination. He contends that Allied Waste and the Byerly’s
story is rife with inconsistencies, and that Allied Waste failed to meet its burden of
proof during the hearing. During the Board’s hearing, the appellant questioned the
accuracy of the employer’s video. He contended that it merely showed him removing
tires from the employer’s shed, an activity he does regularly as part of his
employment. The appellant also argues that a favorable decision he received in a
criminal trial based on the same facts should exonerate him.
5.
In reviewing decisions from the Board, the court is limited to
consideration of the record which was before the administrative agency.2 The court
must determine whether the findings and conclusions of the Board are free from legal
error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.3 Substantial evidence
2
Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (Del. 1976).
3
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265, 1266 (Del. 1981);
Pochvatilla v. United States Postal Serv., 1997 WL 524062, at *2 (Del. Super.); 19 Del. C. §
3323(a) (“In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the [UIAB] as to the facts,
3
Smallwood v. Allied Waste
C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
December 30, 2010
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.4 The court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions
of credibility, or make its own factual findings.5 The reviewing court merely
determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency’s factual
findings.6
6.
The Board’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to the appellant
was premised on its finding that the appellant was discharged for just cause under 19
Del. C. § 3314.7 The term “just cause” denotes a wilful or wanton act in violation of
either the employer’s interest, or the employee’s expected standard of conduct.8
Wilful or wanton conduct is “that which is evidenced by either conscious action, or
reckless indifference leading to a deviation from established and acceptable
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.”).
4
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista
v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. 1986).
5
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
6
Majaya v. Sojourners’ Place, 2003 WL 21350542, at *4 (Del. Super.); see 19 Del. C. §
3323(a) (providing that, absent fraud, the factual findings of the Board shall be conclusive and
the jurisdiction of a reviewing court shall be confined to questions of law).
7
The statute provides: “An individual shall be disqualified for benefits ... [f]or the week
in which the individual was discharged from the individual’s work for just cause in connection
with the individual’s work and for each week thereafter until the individual has been employed in
each of 4 subsequent weeks ....” 19 Del. C. § 3314(2).
8
Moeller v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, 723 A.2d 1177, 1179 (Del. 1999); Tuttle v.
Mellon Bank of Del., 659 A.2d 786, 789 (Del. Super. 1995); Abex Corp. v. Todd, 235 A.2d 271,
271 (Del. Super. 1967).
4
Smallwood v. Allied Waste
C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
December 30, 2010
workplace performance.”9 In a termination case, the employer has the burden of
proving just cause.10
7.
Violation of a reasonable company rule may constitute just cause for
discharge, if the employee is aware of the policy and the possible subsequent
termination.11 This Court uses a two-step analysis to evaluate just cause: (1) whether
a policy existed, and if so, what conduct was prohibited; and (2) whether the
employee was apprised of the policy, and if so, how was he made aware.12
Knowledge of a company policy may be established by evidence of a written policy,
such as an employer’s handbook13 or by previous warnings of objectionable
conduct.14
8.
The appellant contends that the Board reached an erroneous decision due
to false pretense and an incorrect explanation of the incident. He believes that in light
of being found not guilty of criminal charges arising from the same facts, the Board’s
9
MRPC Fin. Mgmt. LLC v. Carter, 2003 WL 21517977, at *4 (Del. Super. June 20,
2003).
10
Country Life Homes, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2007 WL 1519520, at *3
(Del. Super. May 8, 2007); Carter, 2003 WL 21517977, at *4.
11
McCoy v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 1996 WL 111126, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 7, 1996).
12
Id.; see Parvusa v. Tipton Trucking Co. Inc., C.A. No. 92A-12-009 (Del. Super. Dec.
1, 1993).
13
Id. (citing Honore v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal, C.A. No. 92A-12-007 (Del. Super.
Oct. 5, 1993)(Steele, R.J.).
14
Id.
5
Smallwood v. Allied Waste
C.A. No. K09A-12-001 (JTV)
December 30, 2010
decision should be overturned.
9.
However, the appellant’s alleged theft of Allied Waste’s tires clearly
violated the employer’s standard of conduct. The appellant signed the company’s
policy and procedures manual in 2004, and an acknowledgment of handbook
guidelines in 1997. The Board found that “removal of the tires without the prior
approval of the owner, at least, violates the employer’s known and reasonable
policy.”15 I am persuaded that the Board’s conclusion that the appellant was
discharged for just cause is reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and free
of legal error. The Board arrived at its conclusion after considering witness
testimony, the Appeals Referee’s hearing transcript and evidence, as well as
additional information submitted by the appellant. The appellant’s contentions reach
beyond the Court’s standard of review. Since the Board’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and is free of legal error, its decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
oc:
cc:
James T. Vaughn, Jr.
President Judge
Prothonotary
Order Distribution
File
15
Smallwood v. Allied Waste North America, Inc., No. 92953, at 3 (Del. U.I.A.B Aug.
12, 2009).
6
