Court Opinion

ID: 9770612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:12:40.101875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:18.801941
License: Public Domain

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge, dissenting. I dissent from a reversal of the Board’s decision because it represents a departure from our standard of review. The Board found that the employer discharged appellant for a cause that involved appellant’s willful disregard of the employer’s interests and his willful failure to conform to a standard of behavior that the employer had a right to expect of its employees. Specifically, the Board found that (1) appellant was not without fault in the incidents that led to his discharge; (2) appellant knew that the coworker was apt to cause trouble among employees in the work place; (3) appellant addressed the coworker in a manner that was both unnecessary and unreasonable; and (4) appellant’s words were provocative and led to the events that caused the physical confrontation that resulted in his discharge. It is for the Board to translate the evidence before it into findings of fact, and it is our function, upon review, only to determine whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence. As noted by the Board, appellant, a long-term employee, knew that the coworker was an individual who meddled in the business of other employees. Thus, the Board reasoned that this was not a case of mere inefficiency or the failure of good performance as the result of inability, but rather a case where the appellant’s actions manifested an intentional disregard of his employer’s interest, and that appellant should have anticipated the coworker’s reaction. The majority’s characterization of appellant’s words as “spoken in poor judgment” does not take into account the Board’s finding that appellant should have known that his comments would provoke a response. Whether an employee’s acts are willful or merely the result of unsatisfactory conduct or unintentional failure of performance is a fact question for the Board of Review to decide. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a); Rucker v. Director, 52 Ark. App. 126, 915 S.W.2d 315 (1996). I think that the Board’s denial of unemployment compensation based on a finding of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.