APPEAL
FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2017-BR-00645]
Parker
Law Firm, PLLC, by: Michael A. Louden, for appellant.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
MIKE
MURPHY, JUDGE
Appellant
Bobby Postoak appeals from the Board of Review's (Board)
decision affirming the Appeal Tribunal's denial of
benefits to him under Arkansas Code Annotated section
11-10-514(a) (Supp. 2017) on finding he was discharged from
last work for misconduct in connection with the work. We
reverse and remand for an award of benefits.
Bobby
Postoak was a machinist operator at Webb Wheel Products,
Inc., where he operated two machines that cut brake drums for
commercial trucks. On March 15, 2017, Postoak received a
verbal warning for making a quality mistake while running a
batch of parts. It was his first warning in about a year. On
March 21, 2017, Postoak received a written warning and a
three-day suspension for making another, but different,
quality mistake. His suspension was supposed to run from
March 22 to March 24; however, on the first day of
suspension, his general manager called him and informed him
that he was being terminated for his job performance. Postoak
testified that it was his company's policy to terminate
employment after three written warnings in one year, so he
was surprised at his termination.
Postoak
applied for unemployment-insurance benefits. Webb Wheel
neither responded to the application nor appeared at the
hearing. Nevertheless, the hearing officer found that Postoak
had been discharged for intentional poor job performance,
reasoning that repeatedly running bad parts, despite
warnings, is sufficient to find misconduct and preclude
Postoak from benefits. The Appeal Tribunal adopted the
hearing officer's decision. Postoak then appealed to the
Board, which in turn adopted the Tribunal's decision.
Postoak now appeals to this court. On appeal, Postoak argues
that there was not sufficient evidence to support the
Board's decision.
A
person is disqualified for unemployment benefits if it is
found that he was discharged from his employment based on
misconduct in connection with the work. Ark. Code Ann. §
11-10-514(a)(1); Coker v. Dir., 99 Ark.App. 455, 262
S.W.3d 175 (2007). Misconduct is defined in
unemployment-compensation jurisprudence as (1) disregard of
the employer's interests; (2) violation of the
employer's rules; (3) disregard of the standards of
behavior that the employer has a right to expect of its
employees; or (4) disregard of the employee's duties and
obligations to the employer. Moody v. Dir., 2014
Ark.App. 137, at 6, 432 S.W.3d 157, 160. Mere unsatisfactory
conduct, ordinary negligence, or good-faith errors in
judgment or discretion are not considered misconduct unless
they are of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest
wrongful intent, evil design, or an intentional disregard of
the employer's interests. Id. On appeal, we
review the findings of the Board and affirm if they are
supported by substantial evidence. Bergman v. Dir.,
2010 Ark.App. 729, at 5, 379 S.W.3d 625, 628. Substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We
review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's
findings. Id.
The
appellees contend that the simple fact that Postoak ran a
second batch of bad parts so shortly after being reprimanded
for doing that very thing was proof of an intentional
disregard of the employer's interest. Postoak, however,
explains that while he did receive two warnings in a short
period of time, each write-up was for a different reason. The
first time, it was because "he ran a batch of undersized
parts." The second time, "he ran an oversized
pilot." Postoak then argues that two separate warnings
for different reasons is not sufficient to demonstrate that
his mistakes were nothing more than ordinary negligence and
that they were not of such a degree or
recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent, evil
design, or an intentional disregard of the employer's
interests.
We
agree with Postoak. Here, the only evidence before us is that
Postoak received one written warning roughly a year before
his termination, one verbal warning in March, and one written
warning in March. Each warning related to "running bad
parts, " which Postoak characterized as small mistakes.
Especially considering that the employer did not appear at
the hearing or provide any other evidence as to how
Postoak's negligence amounts to misconduct, we hold that
on this record, the Board's finding of misconduct is not
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse
and remand for an award of benefits.
Reversed
and remanded.
Abramson and ...