{
  "id": 6651180,
  "name": "Aristal ATKINSON v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atkinson v. Director of Labor",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-02",
  "docket_number": "E 84-146",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "59",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ark. App. 55"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "696 S.W.2d 777"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 897",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672690
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0897-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ark. App. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6140868
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/8/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ark. App. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137724
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/9/0103-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 6100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17945370560214127
    },
    "sha256": "5f782057c4232090cdd55f892f8792aa226826f7be1ebd27a6eb648b7e997c97",
    "simhash": "1:010694962db4ff11",
    "word_count": 988
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:43.530792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cracraft, C.J., and Glaze, J., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Aristal ATKINSON v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Review holding that the appellant was discharged for misconduct and therefore not entitled to receive unemployment compensation. The statute involved, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1106(b)(2) (Repl. 1976), is Section 5(b)(2) of the Arkansas Employment Security Act and provides that a claimant shall be disqualified for benefits if he is discharged \u201cfor misconduct in connection with the work on account of dishonesty. . . .\u201d\nThe decision of the Board issued on September 12, 1984, contained the following summary of the evidence before it:\nThe claimant was discharged on March 20, 1984 for alleged theft of the employer\u2019s property and dishonesty. The employer-representative, Ronnie Kooer, testified that the claimant asked him to wrap a roll of carpet on March 20,1984 without first presenting the required tickets. The employer-representative stated that he refused this request. According to Kooer\u2019s testimony, the claimant then had three explanations for the lack of written authorization. First, the claimant stated that the carpet was a gift from Mr. Tillman [the employer\u2019s vice-president]. Secondly, the claimant indicated that he purchased the carpet from another business. Finally, the claimant denied these accounts and stated that he moved the carpet to its present location to discover who was stealing from the employer. The claimant testified that this roll of carpet was a gift from Mr. Tillman. Mr. Tillman denied this.\nThe employer-representative, John Shear, testified that other goods missing from the employer\u2019s place of business have been traced to the claimant\u2019s possession, i.e. one six foot roll of sundial vinyl, 4 cartons of tile and a roll of beige carpet. The claimant testified that he purchased these items over two and one-half years ago. The claimant stated twenty-five dollars was withheld from his paycheck every two weeks to pay for the goods. The employer-representative, Reva Sims, testified that there are no business records substantiating the claimant\u2019s statements. Furthermore, John Shear testified the cartons of tile have serial numbers on them indicating their date of manufacture as September 19, 1983. These same cartons were received by the employer on October 14, 1983 and the employer\u2019s business records indicate that they should still be in inventory.\nOn appeal, appellant\u2019s counsel first argues that there is no factual basis in the record to support the Board\u2019s statement that \u201cthe claimant stated that the carpet was a gift from Mr. Tillman.\u201d Counsel has overlooked this testimony of Ronnie Kooer on page 54 of the transcript: \u201cAnother story that he told me was that Mr. Tillman had given him the roll and no one else was suppose to know. . . .\u201d Although the appellant testified that he purchased the carpet from his employer, the Board\u2019s summary of Ronnie Kooer\u2019s testimony is an accurate summary of the testimony given by that witness.\nAppellant\u2019s second argument is that the Board improperly relied upon the evidence set out in its summary about other items missing from the employer\u2019s inventory and traced to the appellant\u2019s possession. It is the appellant\u2019s contention that since Mr. Tillman admitted that the finding of these other items had nothing to do with his decision to terminate appellant\u2019s employment, the Board\u2019s reliance upon this evidence injected a new issue into the case that the claimant had no opportunity to rebut. Appellant says this is contrary to our decision in Linscott v. Director of Labor, 9 Ark. App. 103, 653 S.W.2d 150 (1983).\nIn Linscott the appellant\u2019s claim for unemployment benefits had been denied by the agency on the basis that he had been discharged for misconduct in connection with his work and was therefore disqualified for benefits under Section 5(b)(1) of the Employment Security Act. On appeal to the Appeal Tribunal this disqualification was affirmed. However, on appeal to the Board of Review the Board found that he had voluntarily quit his job without good cause connected with the work and the appellant was held disqualified under Section 5(a) of the Act. We held that the injection of the voluntary quit issue for the first time in the Board\u2019s decision \u201ceffectively denied appellant proper notice of the disputed issue\u201d and we reversed and remanded for a new hearing.\nHowever, the situation here is not like the situation in Linscott. The issue here is whether the appellant was discharged for \u201cmisconduct in connection with the work on account of dishonesty\u201d under Section 5(b)(2) of the Act. This was the issue involved in the agency decision and the same issue has been involved throughout the whole appeal process. At the very first hearing before the Appeal Tribunal there was evidence concerning these other items missing from the employer\u2019s inventory and traced to appellant\u2019s possession. In keeping with our decision in Jones v. Director of Labor, 8 Ark. App. 234, 650 S.W.2d 601 (1983), the Board directed that additional evidence be taken by a referee of the Appeal Tribunal and again there was evidence introduced concerning these missing items traced to appellant\u2019s possession. Appellant\u2019s counsel was present at this hearing and cross-examined the employer\u2019s witnesses about this matter, and the appellant himself testified about it. Furthermore, prior to the second hearing, appellant\u2019s counsel had been furnished a copy of the transcript of the first hearing. Thus, it is clear that the evidence in question did not inject a new issue into the case that appellant had no opportunity to rebut.\nOn appeal to this court it is our duty to affirm the decision of the Board if its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897, 567 S.W.2d 954 (1978). We think there is substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s decision in this case.\nAffirmed.\nCracraft, C.J., and Glaze, J., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. Dewey Fitzhugh, for appellant.",
      "Allan Pruitt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Aristal ATKINSON v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR\nE 84-146\n696 S.W.2d 777\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 2, 1985\nB. Dewey Fitzhugh, for appellant.\nAllan Pruitt, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 79,
  "last_page_order": 83
}