KENDALL S. MONCRIEF, Appellant,
CELTIC CROSSING and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Appellees.
Submitted: December 2, 2014.
Upon an Appeal from the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Kendall S. Moncrief, pro se.
Lauren E. M. Russell, Esquire of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Celtic Crossing.
Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire of Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.
William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge.
Before the Court is the pro se appeal of Appellant Kendall S. Moncrief (hereinafter "Appellant") from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (hereinafter "the Board" or "the UIAB") disqualifying Appellant from receiving unemployment benefits. Appellant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he voluntarily quit working without good cause after not receiving paid vacation time. Because Appellant voluntarily terminated employment without good cause, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Appellant Kendall Moncrief was employed by Celtic Crossing (hereinafter "Appellee-Employer" or "Celtic") from December 2009 through January 2014. Appellant worked as a cook for the entire duration of his employ, and was an hourly worker who received one week of paid vacation time per year (equal to $440.00) beginning in 2013. From January 20-January 27, 2013, the Appellant took time off for vacation. About eleven (11) months later, the Appellant took another week of vacation in December of 2013. However because Appellant had already used one week of vacation in the same year, his December 2013 Christmas leave was unpaid.
On January 5, 2014, the Appellant went to Celtic to pick up his paycheck; it was then that he realized he was not paid for his second week of vacation time. Celtic's owner, Shirley Sheridan (hereinafter "Sheridan"), informed Appellant that his non-payment for the second week of vacation time was accurate. The parties quibbled over whether or not Appellant should have received paid vacation time. The Appellant testified that he never said he was quitting yet Sheridan testified that Appellant stated he was quitting. Sheridan asked him to leave the premises or she would call the police, because she did not feel comfortable. There is discrepancy as to whether the Appellant first declared (or in fact did declare) that he quit or whether the owner requested he leave the premises prior to his quitting.
Regardless, the Appellant did not further inquire as to his employment. Instead he assumed he was terminated and only corresponded with Appellee in order to pick up his final paycheck. Appellant did not return to Celtic to work his scheduled shifts nor did he contact anyone at Celtic.
On March 28, 2014 a Claims Deputy determined that Appellant was disqualified for benefits because he voluntarily quit his job and thus was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Appellant timely appealed on April 1, 2014.
On April 28, 2014, the Appeals Referee reversed the Claims Deputy, finding that the Appellant left work voluntarily with good cause, and as such was entitled to unemployment benefits pursuant to Title 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). The Appeals Referee determined that because the resulting argument between Sheridan and the Appellant was that Sheridan told the Appellant to leave or she would call the police, he left with the impression he had been fired, and that this called for good cause for the Appellant to have left his employment.
On June 11, 2014, the UIAB heard the testimony from both parties. Sheridan testified that she disagreed with the Referee's finding of fact that the Appellant was fired. She testified that the only reason she threatened to call the police was that she felt threatened, and only made that statement after Appellant and said he quit. Ms. Sheridan testified that she did not ask the Appellant to come ...