| Mаrgaret Jones appeals the Arkansas Board of Review’s decision to deny her unemployment benefits. The issue is whether Jonеs was discharged from Packers Sanitation for misconduct; if she committed misconduct, then she gets no benefits. But she did not engage in miscоnduct when she missed four days of work due to an undisputed illness that the employer knew about from the get go. So we reverse the Board’s denial and remand for an award of benefits.
Margaret Jones worked at Packers Sanitation from May 2011 until she was fired in October 2013. Thе circumstances of her firing were addressed during an Appeal Tribunal hearing in December 2013.
Jones was the only party who testified during the hearing, and she told the hearing officer that she was discharged because her employer said that she left work without | permission. Jones said that she left work because she was sick and that a manager, Andre Johnson, was in the hallway when she was vomiting. Although she did not tell her immediate supervisor that she was leaving due to illness, Jones said that she told Johnson that she was ill and needed to go home and that Johnson held a position superior to Jones’s immediate supervisor. The record does not contain a written attendаnce policy.
That Jones became hi at work is essentially undisputed. For when Jones told the hearing officer that a co-worker saw her vomiting and could testify what happened, the hearing officer replied: “Well, you’ve already testified to that, and yоur testimony is credible, so you don’t need a witness for that.” Jones was absent four days, and she testified that she called in each day she was absent. Nothing in the record contradicts Jones’s memory that she kept her employer informed about the basic course of her illness.
Packers Sanitation told Jones that she needed to bring a doctor’s excuse with her when she returned. Jones admittedly did nоt produce a note. According to Jones, her doctor would not accept her insurance because she had not met her deductible; and she could not otherwise afford the $200 visit.
The Appeal Tribunal’s decision, which the Board adopted, stated:
The claimant was discharged by the employer for leaving her work without permission. The claimant provided testimony that although shе did not notify her immediate supervisor, she did notify his supervisor. The claimant was absent for four days and failed to provide a doctоr’s excuse as advised by the employer. By being absent for four days without providing a doctor’s excuse, the claimant’s actions were not in the best interests of the employer. Therefore, the claimant was discharged from last work for misconduct in connection with the work.
_b.II-
The employer must prove misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Grigsby v. Everett,
(2) In cases of discharge for absenteeism, the individual shall be disqualified for misconduct in connection with the work if the discharge was pursuant to the terms of a bona fide written attendance policy with progressive warnings, regardless of whether the policy is a fault or no-fault policy.
(3) (A) Misconduct in connection with the work includes the violаtion of any behavioral policies of the employer as distinguished from deficiencies in meeting production standards or аccomplishing job duties, and
(B) Without limitation:
(i) Disregard of an established bona fide written rule known to the employee; or
(ii) A willful disregard of the employer’s interest.
Our easelaw has long intеrpreted misconduct to include: “(1) disregard of the employer’s interests, (2) violation of the employer’s rules, (3) disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employees, and (4)disregard of the employee’s duties аnd obligations to his employer.” Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf,
[ 4Whether an employee’s behavior is misconduct that justifies the denial of unemployment benefits is a question of fact for the Board to decide. Garrett v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs.,
III.
The Board’s decision that Jones was ineligible for benefits because she failed to get a doctor’s note to excuse her аbsences is unreasonable. Similar legal ground has been plowed before. In Walls v. Director, Employment Security Department,
The Board’s denial is reversed, and the case remanded for an award of benefits.
Reversed and remanded.