 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BROWN v. DIRECTOR6/26/1996
Doyne Brown appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review which denied his claim for unemployment benefits.
Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits on August 8, 1994. On August 30, 1994, appellant completed an "Arkansas Employment Security Department Work Sheet" in which he stated he quit because Larry Sigler questioned him about an insurance claim he submitted for substance abuse treatment; that he felt that this was an invasion of his privacy; and that he felt he could not
continue working under those conditions. He also stated that his wages and working hours had been reduced about a year prior to August 30, 1994.
The agency found that appellant quit his job for undisclosed reasons and denied benefits based upon Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-10-513(A)(1) on the finding that appellant left his work voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work.
Appellant appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, and at a hearing held October 19, 1994, appellant testified he walked off the job because he was so outraged he felt it best to say nothing to anyone. He testified he was upset because Mr. Sigler, the employer's president, told him he was not going to pay a health insurance claim. Appellant said Sigler asked about the claim and it was appellant's understanding that this was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Appellant testified that he had filed two claims for substance abuse treatment approximately eight months previously, and only one was paid. Appellant said the other claim was paid six weeks after he was "constructively discharged." Appellant said he made no effort to discuss the problem with his employer; that he was demoted approximately one year ago because of a substance abuse insurance claim; and although he did not receive a pay cut, his hours were reduced from 47 1/2 to 45 hours per week. Appellant testified further that he was not aware that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are situations where an employer has the right to ask for assurances that an employee is not currently using drugs.
Terry Stalnaker testified he observed the confrontation between Sigler and the appellant; he saw that appellant was very upset; and he saw appellant go out the back door, but he did not hear what was said.
Barbara Brosett, the employer's office manager, testified that the employer was a self-insured company with an administrator. She testified that Sigler has nothing to do with the insurance checks and would not have the authority to stop a claim. She said that on the day in question Sigler opened the mail and said he would ask appellant what he was on. She testified that to her knowledge appellant was not reduced in pay.
The Appeal Tribunal denied benefits on the basis that appellant voluntarily left his last work without good cause connected
with the work within the meaning of the law. The referee held there was insufficient evidence to show that appellant's wages or hours were reduced, but that the evidence shows he primarily quit because he became upset that the employer was questioning him about his condition.
The Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, and found:
The evidence indicates that the claimant became upset when the president of the company asked him about a claim for drug rehabilitation costs, and walked off the job. He acknowledged that he made no effort to resolve the problem before quitting, because of what he termed his "outrage.". . . The claimant also contended that he was improperly demoted and reduced in pay. He did not testify as to the date that occurred, but information in the record indicates that occurr
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|