WILLIAM D. GASKILL, Claimant Below-Appellant,
BESTEMPS and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Respondents Below-Appellees
Submitted January 17, 2014.
Case Closed March 19, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County. C.A. No. K13A-01-004.
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
Henry duPont Ridgely Justice.
This 28th day of February 2014, upon consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (" the UIAB" ), disqualified William D. Gaskill (" Gaskill" ) from the receipt of unemployment benefits because he refused an offer to work pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(3). On January 28, 2013, the Superior Court affirmed Gaskill's disqualification from the receipt of unemployment benefits because Gaskill " left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work" pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). The Superior Court found that the record supported the application of 19 Del. C. § 3314(1) to disqualify Gaskill from benefits, and therefore, the UIAB's misapplication of 19 Del. C. § 3314(3) did not amount to legal error requiring reversal of its decision. This is Gaskill's pro se appeal of the Superior Court's decision.
(2) In August 2012, after Gaskill was laid off from his job as a material handler at the Dover Air Force Base, he was hired by BesTemps of Dover (" BesTemps" ), a temporary staffing service. BesTemps placed Gaskill as a warehouse worker at Color-Box in Harrington, Delaware on August, 27, 2012. On his BesTemps application form, Gaskill indicated he was able to work all available shifts and was available to work weekends. Gaskill was informed by his BesTemps supervisor that he may have to work weekends as part of the Color-Box assignment. At the time of the placement, Gaskill had custody of his young child every other weekend. On the same day as his placement, Gaskill contacted the mother of his child and attempted to modify the custody arrangement so that he could work every weekend. Gaskill was not able to secure such an arrangement.
(3) On August 29, 2012 Gaskill arrived at Color-Box for orientation. Gaskill was informed by Color-Box personnel that it was mandatory for him to work every weekend. Gaskill informed Color-Box that he was unable to secure proper childcare arrangements for his child that would allow him to work every weekend. Gaskill was told that he could only work at Color-Box if he agreed to work every weekend, and when he failed to so agree, he was dismissed. Gaskill was clocked out by Color-Box personnel after he had attended orientation for six hours.
(4) On August 30, 2012 Gaskill's BesTemps supervisor called him and informed him that she would notify him of any further job opportunities. When Gaskill did not immediately hear back from his supervisor, he called her and left a message to call him back. Gaskill's phone message was his last and final attempt to contact BesTemps about employment opportunities. Gaskill subsequently filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
(5) On September 29, 2012, the Claims Deputy disqualified Gaskill from the receipt of unemployment benefits, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(3), because he refused an offer to work. Gaskill appealed, and on October 22, 2012, an Appeals Referee affirmed the determination. Gaskill appealed again, and the UIAB, by decision dated January 28, 2013, adopted the findings and conclusions of the Appeals Referee and reaffirmed Gaskill's disqualification from the receipt of unemployment benefits. The UIAB determined that Gaskill refused an offer to work by " ...