Smack v. Randstad HR Solutions of DE
S17A-06-002 THG
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Smack was a temporary worker assigned to FedEx via Volt; assignment transferred to Randstad (Employer) when FedEx changed vendors.
- In January 2017 a FedEx manager told Smack there would be downtime; Smack applied for unemployment benefits.
- Employer’s records introduced three electronic documents (policies/talent agreement) showing Smack electronically acknowledged them in 2015; Smack denied access to the email and denied seeing/signing them in person.
- The documents required employees to notify Employer when an assignment ended and to remain in weekly contact; Smack did not contact Employer until February 10, 2017, over a month after the FedEx assignment ended.
- A claims deputy found Smack voluntarily quit and disqualified her benefits; an Appeals Referee affirmed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the Referee. Smack appealed to Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smack voluntarily quit her employment | Smack argues she did not quit; FedEx told her there would be downtime and she applied for benefits | Employer says Smack electronically acknowledged policies requiring notice when assignments end and she failed to notify, constituting voluntary quit | Court reversed Board because Board relied on telephone testimony in violation of its rule; merits not sustained on this record |
| Admissibility/weight of electronically signed documents | Smack challenges validity of electronic signatures and lack of access to the email address used for authentication | Employer authenticated documents by showing they were sent to a secured email and required SSN/PIN to access; Referee admitted them | Court did not finally decide validity; reversal required further proceedings because of procedural error below |
| Use of employer’s telephone testimony at Board hearing | Smack objects to Employer participating by telephone and Board relying on that testimony | Employer’s testimony (via counsel by phone) was used at the Referee hearing and the Board relied on the record | Court held Board committed legal error by relying on testimony offered by telephone, contrary to 19 Del. Admin. Code §1201-4.7.4, requiring reversal |
| Effect of Employer’s absence at Board hearing | Smack argued Employer’s absence prejudiced the process and that FedEx personnel should have been contacted | Employer’s earlier hearing record contained the evidence the Board relied upon | Court required remand for proceedings consistent with proper evidentiary rules given Employer’s absence and telephone testimony issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981) (Board findings of fact are conclusive on judicial review if supported by evidence)
- O'Neal's Bus Service, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 269 A.2d 247 (Del. Super. 1970) (definition of "good cause" for leaving employment)