Andy Clark v. Arkansas Department of Workforce Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION I
E06-257
September 26, 2007
ANDY CLARK
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2006-BR01311]
V.
AR K A N SA S DE PA RTM ENT O F
WORKFORCE SERVICES
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
The question in this unemployment-compensation case is whether the termination of
appellant’s employment for his calling in sick three hours after start time in violation of his
employer’s policy constitutes misconduct connected with the work. The Arkansas Board of
Review concluded that it was misconduct on the strength of its finding that appellant was
given a written final warning after two previous instances of late call-ins expressly stating that
any subsequent violation of this policy would result in termination. We reverse and remand
for additional findings because the Board failed to find facts in sufficient detail to permit a
meaningful review of its decision.
The findings of fact of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by
substantial evidence.
We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings. Even when there is evidence
upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review
is limited to a determination of whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon
the evidence before it. Cowan v. Director, 56 Ark. App. 17, 18-19, 936 S.W.2d 766, 767
(1997).
We cannot make such a determination in this case because the Board failed to make
adequate findings of fact to support its decision. Clearly, a willful failure to call in before an
absence would be a violation of the rules as interpreted in the warning letter received by
appellant. The warning letter also establishes the work-relatedness in stating that:
The contribution of each employee is needed every day they are
scheduled to work and is vital to the overall success of the
Company, and when an employee is absent the Company’s
ability to serve its customers is negatively impacted.
Additionally, this places an extreme burden on the remainder of
the staff to provide our customers with quality customer service.
However, Walls v. Employment Security Dept., 74 Ark. App. 424, 49 S.W.3d 670 (2001), holds
that failing to comply with such a policy is not misconduct in the absence of any evidence that
it was motivated by “an intentional or deliberate violation, a willful or wanton disregard, or
carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil
design.” Id. Here, the Board found that appellant’s repeated failures to report absences in
a timely fashion violated a standard of care that the employer had a right to expect, but made
no finding as to whether the final instance that resulted in termination was a willful and
wrongful act or instead the result of an inability to comply because of his illness. The lack of
any such finding is especially significant in that the Board did find that appellant was in fact
seriously ill when he was terminated, so much so that the Board ruled that appellant was
-2-
E06-257
ineligible for unemployment benefits for that week because his illness rendered him
unavailable for work.
The Board may not simply issue orders based on unexplained conclusions. Instead, the
Board must find as facts the basic component elements on which its conclusion is based. A
finding of fact sufficient to permit meaningful review is a simple, straightforward statement
of what happened. It should contain all of the specific facts relevant to the contested issue or
issues so that the reviewing court may determine whether the Board has resolved these issues
in conformity with the law. Ferren v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 213, 956 S.W.2d 198 (1997).
Because we cannot make that determination in this case, we reverse and remand for the Board
to make sufficient findings of fact to permit appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
H ART and M ILLER, JJ., agree.
-3-
E06-257
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
