Slane v. DWS

----ooOoo----

Daniel L. Slane,
Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,
Workforce Appeals Board,
and Richards Street Metal Works,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 991072-CA

F I L E D
March 9, 2000
     2000 UT App 67 -----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Daniel L. Slane, Clearfield, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Workforce Appeals Board

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Daniel L. Slane seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board denying him unemployment benefits. This case is before this court on a sua sponte motion for summary affirmance.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge denied benefits because Slane failed to demonstrate good cause for quitting. Slane appealed to the Board "upon a health issue of cancer." In his petition for review filed in this court, Slane contends he had "a good reason to quit" to obtain better wages and benefits and educational assistance. He also contends he was required to change his employment for health reasons.

Although Slane may have made a wise personal decision in pursuing new employment that would tend to increase his earning potential and educational possibilities, having a "good reason" to quit and having "good cause" to quit are not the same thing. To demonstrate "good cause," an employee must show that continuing the employment would have an adverse effect on the employee that necessitated an immediate severance of the employment relationship, or that the work was unsuitable new work or was illegal. See Utah Code Admin. P. R994-405-102. At the hearing, Slane provided no testimony demonstrating that he had any reason to quit other than dissatisfaction with his advancement potential and the attractive salary and benefit package at Boeing. Although Slane may have had a good reason to quit to pursue employment opportunities with Boeing, this does not establish "good cause" entitling him to unemployment benefits.

In his appeal from the ALJ's decision, Slane stated for the first time that he quit due to his health. He presented no testimony or other evidence in support of this reason at the hearing. Accordingly, the Workforce Appeals Board denied the appeal. In this court, Slane argues for the first time that he was required to leave his job due to advice from his physician and he attempts to introduce evidence in support of this argument. This evidence was never presented to the agency in sworn testimony at the hearing. In his responsive memorandum, Slane makes representations about conversations with the employer regarding his health and conversations with a representative of Workforce Services regarding his eligibility for benefits. These representations also have no basis in the testimony and evidence provided by Slane or the employer at the hearing, and cannot be considered for the first time in proceedings before this court. See Brown & Root Indus. v. Industrial Comm'n, 947 P.2d 671, 677 (Utah 1997) ("We have consistently held that issues not raised in proceedings before administrative agencies are not subject to judicial review except in exceptional circumstances.").

The decision of the Board is affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge