{
  "id": 1715551,
  "name": "CHAMPION PARTS REBUILDERS, INC. v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Charles L. DANIELS, Director and Jay WHITNEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Champion Parts Rebuilders, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Labor",
  "decision_date": "1980-02-27",
  "docket_number": "CA 79-208",
  "first_page": "719",
  "last_page": "722",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 719"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "594 S.W.2d 868"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4716,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.901,
    "sha256": "23ed2d97678b5e8f3dbe156ea18275869fedbad6d4f76981ed3fb9242fe57695",
    "simhash": "1:0dc312b9c7d6ec3e",
    "word_count": 753
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Pilkinton, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CHAMPION PARTS REBUILDERS, INC. v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Charles L. DANIELS, Director and Jay WHITNEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nJay Whitney was dismissed from his job on May 11, 1979, by appellant on the grounds that he was causing dissension among the employees by criticizing appellant\u2019s vacation policy. The reason asserted for Whitney\u2019s termination was characterized as inefficiency.\nWhitney filed a grievance with his union on May 14th. A hearing was conducted on May 17th. During the hearing, appellant agreed to rescind Whitney\u2019s termination and pay him for the days that he lost. However, at Whitney\u2019s request, appellant authorized him to take off two additional days in order to attend to some personal matters. It was understood, however, that Whitney would report for work on May 21st. Whitney did not report for work as he had agreed. On June 1, 1979, Whitney filed for unemployment benefits stating that he had last worked for appellant on May 11th and was discharged without cause.\nAppellant resisted the claim asserting that while Whitney was discharged initially for misconduct within the meaning of Section 5(b)(1) of the Employment Security Law \u2014 for misconduct in connection with his work \u2014 appellant rescinded the dismissal and Whitney agreed to return to work on May 21st; that Whitney failed and refused to resume his status as an employee and, consequently, Whitney is disqualified under Section 5(c)(2) for refusing available and suitable work.\nThe local agency held that Whitney was not guilty of any misconduct within the meaning of Employment Security Law 5(b)(1) \u2014 for misconduct in connection with his work \u2014 the ground which appellant asserted initially for terminating Whitney from his employment.\nThe appellant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal and argued that Whitney was disqualified because of his failure to accept suitable employment.\nThe Referee in stating the scope of the hearing, at the outset, stated:\n\u201cThe primary issue involved is to determine if claimant was discharged from his last work for misconduct in connection with the work within the meaning of Section 5(b)(1) of the Arkansas Employment Security Law.\u201d\nWhen appellant offered to establish its contention that appellee had failed to accept offered employment, the Referee said:\n\u201cOf course, the primary issue here today is was he fired and if so why. Whether he was subsequently offered rehire is really another issue, ...\u201d\nAt another point during the hearing, the Referee observed:\n\u201cMs. Fowler (representative of appellant), we\u2019ve got two issues here today really, and we\u2019ve only got one issue and second issue may arise subsequently. ... the other issue of being recalled to work is not something we\u2019re going into today. That would be another, the Agency here would have to determine whether or not he refused an offer of work without good cause. ...\u201d\nWhile there is some evidence in the record to the effect that appellant offered to rehire Whitney without any conditions attached, Whitney testified to the contrary and further emphasized that he did not return to work, as he had agreed, because he was given additional work to perform. Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to fully develop its claim that Whitney had refused to accept available employment.\nWe are persuaded that all matters pertaining to Whitney\u2019s discharge and the purported offer and acceptance of his reinstatement should have been dealt with in this proceeding. The impracticality of disposing of issues on a piecemeal basis, when all parties are before the agency and all issues stem from the same facts and circumstances, is clear and beyond debate. The speedy resolution of all issues involving employment security, as in the instant case, not only conserves time and expense for all concerned and, in addition, relieves claimant and his family of inconvenience and hardship, but facilitates the economical use of the administrative machinery.\nThe notice of hearing to Whitney dated July 19, 1979, from the Appeals Tribunal made the following relevant observation:\n\u201cYou are notified that the hearing may involve any question having a bearing on the claimant\u2019s right to benefits up to the time of the hearing. . . . (Emphasis supplied)\nAccordingly, we reverse and remand this proceeding with directions to afford both parties an opportunity to fully develop the facts and circumstances involving the discharge and the purported offer and acceptance of rehire.\nReversed and remanded.\nPilkinton, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James H. Pilkinton, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Thelma M. Lorenzo, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHAMPION PARTS REBUILDERS, INC. v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Charles L. DANIELS, Director and Jay WHITNEY\nCA 79-208\n594 S.W. 2d 868\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1980\nReleased for publication March 19, 1980\nJames H. Pilkinton, Jr., for appellant.\nThelma M. Lorenzo, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0719-01",
  "first_page_order": 755,
  "last_page_order": 758
}