Spencer v. Dir, 2014 Ark. App. 479

Shelia Spencer worked as a cashier for Murphy Oil at a gas station and was discharged after two gas-pump "drive-off" shortages.
Murphy’s written policy treated pump drive-offs as cash shortages and allowed dismissal for shortages of $25.00 or more.
After the first drive-off, Spencer received a verbal warning; after a second drive-off of $28.10, she was fired.
Spencer testified at the hearing that both drive-offs resulted from malfunctioning pumps/card readers that falsely showed payment accepted; customers later returned and paid.
The employer presented only documentation stating discharge for unsatisfactory performance but offered no witness testimony to contradict Spencer’s account.
The Appeal Tribunal denied benefits finding misconduct; the Board of Review denied Spencer’s appeal, so the Tribunal’s decision served as the Board’s decision on judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Spencer was discharged for "misconduct in connection with the work" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits	Spencer: shortages were caused by defective pumps, no intentional or reckless conduct by her; money ultimately paid	Murphy: drive-offs meet employer rule for cash shortages; failure resulted in dismissal for unsatisfactory performance	Reversed — insufficient evidence of intentional misconduct; employer failed to prove requisite intent
Whether employer met its burden to prove misconduct by a preponderance of evidence	Spencer: employer offered no testimony or contrary proof; her credible explanation went unrebutted	Murphy: relied on policy and documentation of discharge rather than evidentiary proof at hearing	Held for Spencer — documentation alone insufficient; Board could not reasonably infer willful or wanton disregard without proof of intent

Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf, 1 Ark. App. 114, 613 S.W.2d 612 (1981) (misconduct requires more than inefficiency or isolated negligence; must show intentional or willful disregard)