A Team Temporaries v. Director, Department of Workforce Services and Jennifer L. Fraze
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II & III
No. E08-33
A TEAM TEMPORARIES,
Opinion Delivered
NOVEMBER 12, 2008
APPELLANT
V.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES and JENNIFER
L. FRAZE
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
[2007-BR-01633]
REVERSED AND REMANDED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
1.
UNEM PLOYM ENT COM PENSATION – THE CLA IM ANT ’S ASSIGNM ENT HAD NOT CONCLUDED –
BOARD OF REVIEW M ISAPPLIED THE LAW IN DETERM INING CLAIM AN T ’ S Q U A LIFICATION FOR
BENEF IT S.– The Arkansas Board of Review misapplied the law when it, in effect, ignored
subsection (a)(1) of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 to determine whether the claimant should
have been disqualified from receiving benefits if she had voluntarily and without good cause
connected with the work left her last work in a management position; the fact that the
temporary agency was her employer for the available work as manager did not change the
nature of her last work; before the Board could consider subsection (a)(2)(A), it was required
to first make findings of fact as to whether the claimant’s resignation was without good cause
connected with her management work.
2.
UNEM PLOYM EN T
COM PENSATION
WHETHER THE CLAIM AN T
ASSIGNM ENT .–
–
THE
BOARD
VO LU N T A RILY
FAILED TO M AKE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO
AND
WITHOUT
GOOD
CAUSE LEFT
HER
The Board of Review was mistaken in beginning its analysis from the temporary
agency’s willingness to find another available position for the claimant after she voluntarily left
available work by leaving an ongoing, open-ended assignment that remained available after she
quit; the availability of the work was the determinative factor in determining the disqualification
of benefits, not whether the agency was willing to find an assignment more to the liking of the
claimant; because the Board failed to make a finding of fact as to whether the claimant
voluntarily and without good cause left the management position that remained available for her
continued assignment, the appellate court reversed and remanded for the Board to make that
factual determination on the record in this case.
Appeal from the Arkansas Board of Review; reversed and remanded.
No briefs filed.
Appellant A Team Temporaries appeals the Board of Review’s decision to grant
appellee Jennifer Fraze benefits.
There is no dispute that Ms. Fraze voluntarily quit her
employment assigned through the temporary agency to the client firm.
The Board based its
decision upon the question of whether her voluntarily leaving the available assignment fell
within the definition of “conclusion of an assignment” for purposes of benefits
in
accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2007) and § 11-10-514
(Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2007).
We hold that the Board improperly applied the law and reverse
and remand for further findings of fact.
Through her employment with A Team, Ms. Fraze was assigned to A Team’s client,
Wing Stop, in a long-term position as manager.
After expressing her desire to resign on
various occasions, Ms. Fraze quit her assignment August 28, 2007, stating that she felt that
she could not meet the expectations of the owner of Wing Stop, Mr. Cheatwood.
On
August 30, she turned in her Wing Stop uniforms to the Staffing Coordinator of A Team and
stated that she needed another job. On September 4, she returned to A Team and requested
another assignment; however, despite the employer’s attempts to find other acceptable
positions, there were no other jobs available for her at that time.
-2-
In a notice dated September 14, 2007, the Arkansas Department of Workforce
services
disqualified
Ms.
Fraze from receiving benefits pursuant to
Arkansas Code
Annotated section 11-10-513(a)(4) because she left her work voluntarily and without good
cause connected with the work.
Ms. Fraze appealed that decision and a hearing was
conducted on October 2, 2007.
After receiving testimony, the hearing officer reasoned
that when Ms. Fraze resigned her long-term assignment for Wing Stop that she expected to
report for other assignments available through A Team; therefore, she was laid off due to a
lack of work when no assignments, other than the one she quit, were available.
The hearing
officer then reversed the Department’s denial of benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10513(a) and awarded benefits under section 11-10-514(a), finding that claimant was
discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work.
The
Board affirmed that decision on review.
During the hearing, Mr. Cheatwood testified that Ms. Fraze would still be working at
Wing Stop had she not quit and, in fact, he had made arrangements for additional training
assistance for Ms. Fraze prior to her quitting.
Throughout the discussions, A Team stated
that it was its position that Ms. Fraze left an available assignment without completing it.
We agree with the employer that the assignment did not end. Rather, Ms. Fraze did
not complete her assignment because she refused to continue in the position available to
her through the temporary agency, and there was no indication that Ms. Fraze would not still
be in her assigned position had she not voluntarily left.
However, whether Ms. Fraze
voluntarily left her position is only the first question of fact that the Board had to
-3-
determine.
The next fact question is whether she left her last work “without good cause
connected with the work.”
Our statute providing for disqualification of benefits for voluntarily leaving work
provides in relevant part as follows:
(a)(1) If so found by the Director of the Department of Workforce Services, an
individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he or she voluntarily and without good
cause connected with the work left his or her last work.
(2)(A) An individual working as a temporary employee will be deemed to have
voluntarily quit employment and will be disqualified for benefits under this
subsection if upon conclusion of his or her latest assignment, the temporary
employee without good cause failed to contact the temporary help firm for
reassignment, provided that the employer advised the temporary employee at the
time of hire that he or she must report for reassignment upon conclusion of each
assignment and that unemployment benefits may be denied for failure to do so.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513.
Here the record reflects that Ms. Fraze voluntarily left available work by leaving an
ongoing, open-ended assignment that remained available after she quit. The fact that she
returned to A Team and requested a new assignment does not negate the fact that the
position as manager, in which she had been placed, was still available and, accordingly, not
concluded.
The Board misapplied the law when it, in effect, ignored subsection (a)(1) of section
11-10-513 to determine whether Ms. Fraze should be disqualified for benefits if she
voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work left her last work.
last work was her position as manager at Wing Stop.
-4-
Ms. Fraze’s
The fact that A Team was her
employer for the available work as manager does not change the nature of her last work.
Before the Board may consider subsection (a)(2)(A), it must first make findings of fact
concluding whether or not Ms. Fraze’s resignation was without good cause connected with
her work as manager at Wing Stop. If the Board finds that she left without good cause, then
Ms. Fraze is disqualified from benefits.
If the Board finds that she left with good cause,
then it may resume its analysis to determine whether Ms. Fraze was deemed to have
voluntarily relinquished her employment with A Team.
Subsection (a)(2)(A) imposes a duty upon the temporary employment agency to
inform an individual working as a temporary employee that the failure to report for
reassignment may
result in a denial of unemployment benefits and
employee’s failure to
report for reassignment shall be deemed
relinquishment of employment.
to
states that the
be
a voluntary
This subsection recognizes that assignments through a
temporary agency are often short in duration and that the agency may quickly reassign the
employee
to
a different position.
Furthermore,
strong public-policy considerations
support the role that temporary agencies hold in our community.
Jones v. Sheller-Globe
Corp., 487 N.W.2d 88, 92 (Iowa App.1992).
Our court, in Weaver v. Director Employment Sec. Dep’t., 82 Ark. App. 616, 120
S.W.3d 158 (2003), explained that whether there was good cause to leave is irrelevant if
the departure was not voluntary. In Weaver, the employee did not voluntarily quit when she
was hired for a part-time, temporary position at the school, and, she not only completed her
-5-
deadline in December, but accepted an extension of her position until the end of the school
year.
The employee was entitled to benefits in that case because she fulfilled the
obligations of the position until the position was no longer available.
The focus in Weaver was whether the employee had voluntarily left the position.
The temporary nature of the position was dispositive of the issue of voluntariness.
The
Board in this case, however, stated that “no matter the manner in which the client firm
accepted the claimant’s resignation from the assignment, the result was the ‘conclusion’ or
end of the assignment.” The Board was mistaken in beginning its analysis from the
temporary agency’s willingness to find another available position for Ms. Fraze.
The
availability of the work is the determinative factor in determining the disqualification of
benefits, not whether an agency is willing to find an assignment more to the liking of the
claimant.
Because the Board failed to make a finding of fact as to whether Ms. Fraze
voluntarily and without good cause left the position as manager at Wing Stop that remained
available for her continued assignment, we reverse and remand for the Board to make that
factual determination on the record in this case. See Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v.
Director of Arkansas Employment Security Dep’t, 88 Ark. App. 36, 36, 194 S.W.3d 790,
791 (2004).
If the Board then determines that Ms. Fraze left for good cause connected
with the work as manager, then it may proceed to apply the provisions of subsection
(a)(2)(A) and section 11-10-514 to award or deny benefits.
Reversed and remanded.
-6-
GLOVER, VAUGHT , and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree.
ROBBINS and GRIFFEN, JJ., dissent.
GRIFFEN, J., dissenting.
The Arkansas Board of Review (Board) awarded
unemployment benefits pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-10-514(a) (Supp. 2007)
because it found that claimant Jennifer Fraze’s separation from her last work was due to a
layoff caused by the unavailability of work, rather than misconduct in connection with the
work.
I would affirm the Board’s decision, which is supported by substantial evidence.
See
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-529(c)(1) (Supp. 2007). In reversing and remanding for the Board
to determine under a separate statute, Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-10-513 (Supp.
2007), whether Fraze voluntarily left her employment without good cause, the majority
opinion ignores the dispositive finding that the Board made under § 11-10-514(a), and
seeks to require the Board to make an unnecessary finding.
Through A Team, a temporary employment agency, Fraze accepted a long-term
assignment as a manager with Wing Stop.
Fraze was unhappy with her assignment for
various reasons and threatened to quit several times before she finally quit.
left that assignment before she completed it.
She ultimately
Fraze explained that she resigned because she
could not satisfy Wing Stop’s owners with her job performance; thus, she felt it would be
best if she quit.
Wing Stop’s owners accepted Fraze’s resignation and another A Team
employee was hired to fill the vacancy.
As the terms of Fraze’s employment with A Team
-7-
dictated, she reported to A Team within five days of ending her assignment with Wing Stop,
at which time, the employer did not have any available suitable work.
Although we review only the Board’s findings, the procedural history of this case
demonstrates the majority’s error in requiring the Board to make separate findings under §
11-10-513.
The Department of Workforce Services (Department) initially denied Fraze
unemployment benefits based on § 11-10-513.
to a claimant who voluntarily leaves work.
That statute denies unemployment benefits
See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(1).
The
same statute also disqualifies a temporary employee who, without good cause, fails to
contact the temporary help firm for reassignment upon conclusion of his or her latest
assignment.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(2).
The Arkansas Appeals Tribunal
reversed the Department’s denial of benefits under § 11- 10- 513, and modified the
Department’s determination to specifically award benefits under § 11-10-514(a), which
disqualifies a claimant who is discharged from his or her last work due to misconduct in
connection with the work.
The Board affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision, awarding benefits under § 1110-514(a).
In so doing, the Board rejected the employer’s claim that Fraze “quit the
employment when she quit the assignment” to Wing Stop.
The Board determined that Wing
Stop’s acceptance of Fraze’s resignation resulted in the conclusion of Fraze’s temporary
assignment with Wing Stop but did not end her employment with A Team.
The Board found
that Fraze’s employment with A Team continued because A Team considered Fraze eligible
-8-
for reassignment when her assignment with Wing Stop ended.
Accordingly, the Board
concluded that Fraze’s separation from her last work was due to lack of work, rather than
due to misconduct connected with work within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10514(a).
I would affirm the Board’s decision.
While Fraze did not complete her assignment
with Wing Stop, § 11-10-513 does not define a temporary employee as one who completes
a temporary assignment.
A temporary employee is an employee assigned to work for the
clients of a temporary help firm.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(2)(C) (Repl. 2003).
A
temporary help firm means a firm that hires its own employees and assigns them to
clients to support or supplement the client’s work force in work situations such as
employees’
absences,
assignments and projects.
temporary skill shortages,
seasonal workloads,
and
special
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).
Providing that the temporary employee has been so informed, he will be deemed to have
voluntarily quit employment and will be disqualified for benefits if, upon conclusion of his
latest assignment, the temporary employee without good cause failed to contact the
temporary help firm for reassignment.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11- 10-513(a)(2)(A) (emphasis
added).
The Board here specifically found that Fraze’s assignment was concluded; upon
conclusion of her temporary assignment to Wing Stop, she contacted her employer as
required, and no suitable work was available.
That is all that § 11-10-513(a)(2)(A) requires.
-9-
The majority opinion fails to explain why Wing Stop’s acceptance of Fraze’s resignation
did not result in the conclusion of her assignment; it also sweeps aside the fact that Fraze’s
employment with A Team thereafter continued because A Team considered Fraze eligible
for reassignment when her assignment with Wing Stop ended.
Obviously, Fraze did not
“quit” her employment with the temporary agency when she “quit” Wing Stop because her
employer thereafter attempted to find her another temporary job.
Accordingly, because the requirements of § 11-10-513 were satisfied, that statute
cannot be used as a basis for denying Fraze unemployment benefits.
Moreover, because the
Board’s decision to award benefits under § 11-10-514 is supported by substantial evidence,
there is no need to reverse and remand for it to determine whether Fraze voluntarily quit or
had good cause to quit under § 11-10-513. To do so would require the Board to engage in
an exercise that is both futile and improper given our standard of review and the plain
meaning of the Board’s finding and the pertinent statute.
The practical effect of the holding set forth in the majority opinion is to judicially
nullify the very real distinction between temporary employees assigned by temporary- help
firms, and other employees.
It is one thing for the Arkansas General Assembly to rescind
that distinction; after all, the General Assembly created it.
It is judicial legislation for our
court to do so.
I am authorized to state that Judge Robbins joins in this opinion.
-10-
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.