Message
×
loading..

Watts v. Kraft Heinz Foods ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    SAMUEL C. WATTS,
    Claimant-BeloW/Appellant, : C.A. No. KlSA-()7-001 JJC
    In and for Kent County
    V.
    KRAFT HEINZ FOODS, and
    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
    APPEAL BOARD,
    Employer-BeloW/Appellee.
    M
    Submitted: October 3, 2018
    Decided: November l9, 2018
    Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal from the Decision of the
    Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board - AFFIRMED
    AND NOW TO WIT, this 19th day of November, 2018, upon consideration
    of the record and the briefing by the parties, IT APPEARS THAT:
    l. Bei``ore the Court is Mr. Samuel Watts’s (hereinafter “Mr. Watts”) appeal
    from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (hereinafter “the
    UIAB” or “the Boar ”). The Board found in favor of his previous employer, Kraft
    Heinz Foods (hereinafter “Kraft”). Namely, it found Kraft had just cause to
    terminate Mr. Watts. He now appeals the Board’s decision.
    2. Kraft employed Mr. Watts as a production Worker from April 20, 2015,
    until January 8, 2018. Kraft’s attendance policy provides for an assessment of
    points for unexcused absences. These points remain on the employees’ record for
    one year. The policy further provides for a discharge of an employee after the
    employee accumulates nine points for unexcused absences. The record establishes
    that Mr. Watts knew of the policy and signed a copy of it on April 22, 2015,
    3. As of November 22, 2017, Mr. Watts had accumulated eight points
    because of attendance violations. As a result, Kraft suspended him on December
    12, 2017. These eight points did not include a point for a December 5, 2017
    absence. After including that point, Kraft discharged Mr. Watts on January 8, 2018
    for accumulating nine points. Mr. Watts then applied for unemployment benefits
    In response, Kraft asserted that his termination was for “just cause” and that he was
    ineligible for unemployment benefits.
    4. The UIAB held a hearing in this case on May 16, 2018. The UIAB
    hearing followed the March 27, 2018, hearing of an appeals referee that in turn
    affirmed the determination of a claims deputy. Both the appeals referee and the
    claims deputy held that Mr. Watts was disqualified from receiving unemployment
    benefits because he was terminated for just cause.
    5. In considering Mr. Watts’s appeal from the appeals referee’s decision, the
    Board heard Mr. Watts’s testimony at its hearing. Mr. Watts disagreed with the
    appeals referee’s decision because he believed that the referee did not consider the
    timing of the points allocation. Mr. Watts complained that a time lag in assessing
    the points made him unaware that he had accumulated eight points until he was
    suspended. Furthermore, he complained that after he was suspended, the time lag
    in assessing points, which by then included a December 5, 2017, absence, brought
    him to the nine point threshold He claimed that if he knew he had accrued eight
    points before December 5, 2017, he would not have called out on that day.
    6. After considering the evidence, the Board found that Kraft had just cause
    to terminate Mr. Watts. The Board found unpersuasive Mr. Watts’s argument that
    had he been aware that he had accumulated eight points as of the prior month, he
    would have chosen not to miss work on December 5, 2017 . The Board determined
    that the responsibility to monitor point accumulation rested solely with Mr. Watts.
    Mr. Watts did not contest that he rightfully accumulated nine points; he disputed
    only his notice of them. The fact that Mr. Watts unwittingly accumulated his ninth
    point did not excuse his absence in the eyes of the Board. After the Board found
    just cause, Mr. Watts filed a notice of appeal and then filed a written brief.
    7 . As with appeals from other administrative agencies, this Court’s appellate
    review of the UIAB’s factual findings is limited to determining whether the
    Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.l Substantial evidence
    means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
    support a conclusion.”2 On appeal, the Court views the facts in the light most
    favorable to the prevailing party below.3 Moreover, the Court does not weigh the
    evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings4
    Absent any errors of law, which are reviewed de novo, a decision of the IAB
    supported by substantial evidence will be upheld unless the Board abused its
    discretion.5 The Board abuses its discretion when its decision exceeds the bounds
    of reason in view of the circumstances6
    8. Here, the Court finds no error of law in the Board’s decision. The
    Delaware Code provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if they
    are terminated for “just cause.”7 Employers bear the burden of showing by a
    preponderance of the evidence that a claimant was discharged for “just cause” in
    connection with his or her work.8 “Just cause” includes a “willful or wanton act or
    1 Bullock v. K-Mart Corp., 
    1995 WL 339025
    , at *2 (Del. Super. May 5, 1995) (citing General
    Motors v. Freeman, 
    164 A.2d 610
    , 686 (Del. 1960)).
    2 Olney v. Cooch, 
    425 A.2d 610
    , 614 (Del. 1981) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm ’n, 
    383 U.S. 607
    , 620 (1966)).
    3 Chudnofsky v. Edwards, 
    208 A.2d 516
    , 518 (Del. 1965).
    4 Bullock, 
    1995 WL 339025
    , at *2 (citing Johnson v. Chrjysler Corp., 
    213 A.2d 64
    , 66 (Del.
    1965)).
    5 Hoffecker v. Lexus of Wilmington, 
    2012 WL 341714
    , at *l (Del. Feb. 1, 2012).
    5 Ia'.
    7 
    19 Del. C
    . § 3314(2) (providing that “[a]n 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 ...”).
    
    8 Wilson v
    . Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 
    2011 WL 3243366
    , at *2 (Del. Super. Jul. 27, 2011).
    pattern of conduct in violation of the employer’s interest, the employee’s duties, or
    ”9 Willf``ul or wanton conduct is
    the employee’s expected standard of conduct.
    conduct “evidenced by either conscious action, or reckless indifference leading to a
    deviation from established and acceptable workplace performance; it is
    unnecessary that it be founded in bad motive or malice.”10 An employee’s conduct
    is highly relevant in determining just cause.11
    9. An employer necessarily establishes the standard for acceptable
    workplace conduct and performance12 The violation of a reasonable company rule
    “may constitute just cause for discharge if the employee is aware of the policy and
    13 There is a two-part
    possible subsequent termination” for violating such a rule.
    analysis to evaluate just cause in the context of termination for violation of
    company rules. This analysis includes: (1) determining whether a policy existed,
    and if so, what conduct was prohibited; and (2) determining whether the employee
    was appraised of the policy, and if so, how she or he was made aware of it.14 A
    written policy may be sufficient, but is not necessary, to show that an employee
    15
    had knowledge of the policy. The most important question remains whether the
    employer “clearly communicated to the employee what was expected of him or
    her.”16
    10. The Board correctly applied the test, and its findings regarding the two
    prongs were supported by substantial evidence of record. First, the record
    demonstrates that Kraft had a termination policy that outlined acceptable conduct
    9 Majaya v. Sojourners ’ Place, 
    2003 WL 21350542
    , at *4 (Del. Super. Jun. 6, 2003).
    1° MPRC Fin. Mgmt., LLC v. Carter, 
    2003 WL 21517977
    , at *4 (Del. Super. Jun. 20, 2003).
    11 Ia’.
    11 Ia'.
    13 Wilson, 
    2011 WL 3243366
    , at *2.
    1“ Ia'.
    15 
    Id. 15 Wesley
    Coll. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 
    2009 WL 5191831
    , at *7 (Del. Super. Dec. 31,
    2009)
    for its employees based on their absences. If the employees violated this policy
    and accumulated nine points for misconduct, they would be terminated. Under the
    second prong, the record also established that Mr. Watts was aware of this policy.
    He signed a copy of this policy and admitted during his testimony that he was
    aware of it and understood it.
    ll. Furthermore, Mr. Watts did not challenge the allocation of the points for
    his absence and admits that the points were rightfully assessed. Instead, he merely
    challenged the timing of their assessment He argued that if he had known he had
    accrued eight points before December 5 when he received his last point, he would
    not have missed work. The Board did not err in rejecting his argument. The Board
    found that it was Mr. Watts’s unjustified failure to monitor the accumulation of his
    points that was to blame. If there was uncertainty about the number of points he
    had accumulated, he could have followed up with his supervisor to determine how
    many points he had accumulated, Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board’s
    finding that Kraft had just cause to terminate Mr. Watts was supported by
    substantial evidence and free from legal error.
    NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons cited, the Board’s decision in this
    matter is AFFIRMED.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    /s/ Jeffrey.l Clark
    JJC/dsc
    

Document Info

Docket Number: K18A-07-001 JJC

Judges: Clark J.

Filed Date: 11/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/19/2018