{
  "id": 6138755,
  "name": "Milton MISSOURI v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department and Lamb & Associates",
  "name_abbreviation": "Missouri v. Director, Employment Security Department & Lamb & Associates",
  "decision_date": "2003-12-10",
  "docket_number": "E 03-204",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. App. 172"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "137 S.W.3d 436"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 Ark. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141755
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/83/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-514",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-513",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 466,
    "char_count": 10281,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47243101817905214
    },
    "sha256": "de8ba11dc5bf9d4059e2a2dd1e2590a66ced832a03a8dcc1638a22e1f07ff830",
    "simhash": "1:ac0b0cc20087fa5f",
    "word_count": 1825
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:08.452411+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Milton MISSOURI v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department and Lamb & Associates"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sam Bird, Judge.\nIn this unbriefed pro se appeal, Milton Missouri contends that the Board of Review erred when it denied him unemployment benefits on the finding that he voluntarily left last work without good cause connected with the work. Because we hold that reasonable minds could not come to the Board\u2019s conclusion, we reverse the decision and remand for an award of benefits.\nThe Board\u2019s decision, which adopted and affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, cited Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-513 and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-514. Under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-10-513(a)(l) (Supp. 2003), 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. Section 11-10-514 (Repl. 2002) states that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he or she is discharged from last work for misconduct in connection with the work.\nThe decision of the Board included these findings of fact:\nThe claimant was a resident at a resident center and was provided transportation to and from work while several from the center were working for the employer. All the residents of the center left the employer except the claimant. He was no longer provided transportation to work. The claimant moved to Hensley, Arkansas and rode the city buses to and from work during the week. The claimant could not work overtime because his work was done before city buses start running. The claimant could not work on Saturday due to the bus schedules. The claimant quit.\nThe Board found that appellant should be denied benefits under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-10-513(a).\nThe Board of Review\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Bradford v. Director, 83 Ark. App. 332, 128 S.W.3d 20 (2003). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board\u2019s findings. Id. 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. Id.\nAppellant testified on his own behalf at the hearing. When asked if he had quit his work, he responded, \u201cWell, no, not in a way.\u201d He stated that he moved home to Hensley after the rehabilitation center quit providing transportation to his job at Lamb and Associates in Maumelle, Arkansas, where he was a laborer. He stated that after he moved back home, he began riding CAT (Central Arkansas Transit) buses from Hensley to his place of employment, but that because the buses did not run in the early morning hours on weekdays and did not run at all on Saturdays, he did not have transportation that met the employer\u2019s early-morning and Saturday overtime schedules.\nAppellant testified that because the employer\u2019s assistant plant manager, Greg Fason, knew that he did not have transportation in the early mornings on weekdays or on Saturdays, Fason would assign another worker in appellant\u2019s place when overtime work was scheduled for his shift. Appellant said that one Friday when Fason was not at work, the employer\u2019s plant manager, Jason Kidder, told him that, because he was not able to get to work when he was needed, he would have to make a decision on what he could do, but that there was not much he could do because he could not get a ride. The testimony continued:\nClaimant: So I asked him, well, could I work this last day. He told me yeah, so I went to work and he called me hack to his office and told me that I couldn\u2019t work \u2019cause I was terminated.\nH. Officer: Because you were terminated?\nClaimant: Yes, sir.\nH. Officer: Why would you be terminated?\nClaimant: Because I wasn\u2019t able to get there on, transportation on Saturday. See, sometime on Saturday, when I was scheduled to work the day, when they would work overtime on the time that I was scheduled to be there they\u2019d put someone in my place but this Saturday, I don\u2019t know, they just told me that if I couldn\u2019t be there on Saturdays when I was scheduled to work then I just wasn\u2019t able to, you know, keep the job, so I had been doing that for two or three years, they would put someone in my place but, all of a sudden, I just couldn\u2019t get on the bus \u2019cause the bus don\u2019t run on Saturday out there, and I didn\u2019t have no other means of transportation to get there ... and that was our biggest problem. I live about 40, 50 miles outside a ride, I mean, outside where my company was located at, and the only time I could get there was on the bus.\nThe bus couldn\u2019t get me there at 7:00 in the morning and sometime we worked overtime, it\u2019d be 4:00 in the morning so a lot of times they\u2019d put someone in my place for those two hours and then on Saturday, put someone out there, period.\nSo, if I had to work on Saturday, I didn\u2019t have no transportation to get out there.\nThat was the main thing to it, I guess he said I had to either quit or he had to let mego because when he needed me if I couldn\u2019t be there, you know, he set up his operation, like he said, and he can\u2019t set up the operation if I couldn\u2019t be there, but I didn\u2019t have no other way to get there. The bus don\u2019t run on Saturdays so it\u2019s just out of the question....\n(Emphasis added.)\nJason Kidder, the plant manager, testifying on behalf of the employer, stated that appellant had worked for the company a couple of years, that the problem with appellant\u2019s job was transportation, and that appellant\u2019s employment would have continued if he \u201cwould have decided\u201d that he could get to work. Kidder testified that the company had worked with appellant \u201cevery chance we could get,\u201d but that he was \u201cgiven the option of having a job or move on\u201d after the following event:\nHe was scheduled on a Saturday, did not present to me on Friday prior to that he couldn\u2019t be here, you know, so I brought crews in on Saturday. I didn\u2019t feel it was my responsibility to go ask Milton if he was gonna be here or not... and brought my crews in on Saturday and I was short handed. He was part of the three-men crew, and I only had two. When I\u2019m in here working on Saturday I\u2019m paying premium time, as far as overtime, and it\u2019s very important that we run as efficiently as possible.\nAnd this, you know, this time Milton not here [sic], didn\u2019t call in to explain his whereabouts or anything.\nAfter the initial presentation by each party, each was allowed to question the other\u2019s testimony or to testify in rebuttal. Appellant stated, in pertinent part:\nWell, usually on a Saturday we had got to the point where, like his assistant, Greg, you wasn\u2019t even asking about that \u2019cause you know I didn\u2019t have no ride on Saturday, you would just go on and put someone in my place. You know, you (inaudible) then it got to the point where they knew I didn\u2019t have no way to get there on Saturday so Greg would just usually ask somebody else, or, you know, and Greg would say, \"Man, just go ahead. I know you can\u2019t make it on Saturdays no way.\u201d Other than that I should have called in or got to the point that I woulda made sure I (inaudible) but we had been doing (inaudible), Greg Fason, so long that we had got to knowing that I couldn\u2019t be there on Saturday so they would automatically get someone put in my place. This particular Saturday I don\u2019t know why they come to me like I would have called in on Friday or I, you know, gotta gofind somebody else when usually that, you know, Greg would put someone in my place automatically, and so I don\u2019t know how they, why they came to be like that on that particular Saturday because usually they would get someone else to put in my place that had transportation to get to the company, like they would do when Fd have to be there at four o\u2019clock in the morning.\n(Emphasis added.)\nOn rebuttal, Kidder testified that he, rather than Greg Fason, was working that Saturday, and that it was his opinion as plant manager that it was not his responsibility \u201cto bring that up.\u201d He testified that he had always told employees that if they could not find a qualified person to work overtime he would not risk productivity, and that employees were responsible for their overtime regardless of whether or not they had transportation.\nThe Board set forth the following reasoning as the basis of its conclusion that appellant voluntarily left last work without good cause connected with the work:\nThe claimant quit his job due to not having any transportation. The claimant did not quit due to any condition of the work that would impel the average, able-bodied, otherwise qualified individual to give up the job.\nThe Board recognized in its decision that appellant rode public buses to get to his job in Maumelle after his residential center had stopped furnishing transportation and he had moved to Hensley. It is clear to us that appellant\u2019s job continued for some time after his move despite his inability to get to the plant for overtime work because of the bus schedule, and that on these occasions another worker was regularly assigned to work in appellant\u2019s place. It is also clear that on a day when the plant manager rather than his assistant was supervising appellant\u2019s shift, appellant was told that he would not be able to keep his job unless he could make accommodations regarding overtime work.\nWe hold that reasonable minds could not find that appellant quit his work because of the lack of transportation. We hold, rather, that appellant was discharged when the plant manager suddenly decided to discontinue the employer\u2019s practice of providing a substitute worker during hours that appellant could not be present for overtime work. We reverse the Board\u2019s decision that appellant is disqualified for unemployment benefits under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-10-513(a) for leaving his work \u201cvoluntarily and without good cause connected with the work.\u201d\nReversed and remanded for an award of benefits.\nHart and Vaught, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sam Bird, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Milton MISSOURI v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department and Lamb & Associates\nE 03-204\n137 S.W.3d 436\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered December 10, 2003\nAppellant, pro se.\nPhyllis A. Edwards, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 201
}