B. J. McAdams, Inc. v. Daniels, CA

• Decision Date: 04 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: B. J. McAdams, Inc. v. Daniels, 600 S.W.2d 418, 269 Ark. 693 (Ark. App. 1980)
• Parties: B. J. McADAMS, INC., Appellant, v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor and Leroy McCraney, Appellees. 79-346.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 418

600 S.W.2d 418

269 Ark. 693

B. J. McADAMS, INC., Appellant, v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor and Leroy McCraney, Appellees.

No. CA 79-346.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas.

June 4, 1980.

James W. Woods, North Little Rock, for appellant.

Thelma Lorenzo, Little Rock, for appellees.

PILKINTON, Judge.

This is an unemployment compensation case. The appellant, employer below, has appealed a determination of the Arkansas Employment Security Board of Review which held appellee was not disqualified from benefits under the provisions of Section 5(b)(1) of the Arkansas Employment Security Act.

The claimant last worked for this employer as a truck driver on December 8, 1979. According to the appellant he was formally discharged on January 12, 1979, after having three accidents in an eleven-month period of time. The final accident occurred in Checotah, Oklahoma, on December 8, 1979. At that time the evidence shows that the claimant was driving approximately 35 miles per hour and slipped off in a ditch causing about $5,300 in damages to the employer's equipment. According to the testimony of the employer the appellee was a satisfactory employee except for the three accidents, and two other incidents, in which he was involved. These had an adverse effect on the cost of insurance coverage to the employer.

Section 5(b)(1) of the Arkansas Employment Security Act (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81-1106(b)(1) (Repl.1976)) provides a disqualification for claimants who are discharged from their last work for misconduct in connection with the work within the meaning of the above cited section of the law. The determination of the Appeals Tribunal was duly appealed to the Board of Review which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal determination allowing the claimant unemployment benefits. In the employer's appeal to the Board of Review, counsel argued that the claimant's involvement in what he termed "five chargeable (avoidable) incidents or accidents" during his tenure of employment as an over the road truck driver proves a pattern or course of conduct which shows "the claimant was not only negligent but his actions in violating the policies and directives of the employer were willful." The employer-appellant introduced and relied on three separate exhibits. These were the completed "Report of Accident" forms pertaining to each of the three motor vehicle accidents in which claimant-appellee was involved. The Board of Review in its written decision pointed out that none of the information contained in the accident reports suggests any objective basis or reliable data to support the employer's contention that "the three accidents were caused by claimant's negligence on the job." The Board of Review was persuaded that the weight of the evidence supports and sustains the conclusion that the employer's dissatisfaction with claimant arose from causes other than misconduct in connection with the work.

The Board of Review in its opinion made the following comments and...