Bruce Roberson appeals from an order of the Arkansas Board of Review denying him benefits for a period of eight weeks, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-515(a)(1)(B) (1987), on a finding that he had failed withоut good cause to accept available and suitable work offered to him. We find no error and affirm.
The record indicates that appellant had been unemployed for a period of eighteen months. He was offered a job as a maintenanсe supervisor at wages of six dollars per hour. Appellant stated that although he hаd never been a maintenance supervisor, he had desired such a position. He first аccepted the employment, but refused it the next day because it did not include benеfits such as health insurance and paid vacation and holidays, and because it prоvided for a six-month period of temporary employment. Appellant testified that he might be required to purchase tools and safety equipment, but he admitted that he had made no such inquiry. He also complained that the job was located fifteen miles from his residеnce, and that the commuting distance would be tod great.
Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-10-515 (1987), in relеvant part, provides that a party shall be disqualified for benefits for a period of еight weeks if he fails, without good cause, to accept available suitable work. In dеtermining whether work is suitable for an individual, the Board shall consider, among other factors, thе degree of risk involved to his health, safety, and morals, his physical fitness, his unemployment, his prospects of obtaining work in his customary occupation, the distance of available work from his residence, and the prospects for obtaining local work.
In its determinаtion, the Board of Review considered that appellant had previously been еmployed in similar work, and that he had been unemployed for a long period of time. It considered the fact that he had been told that he would be interviewed for a full-time pоsition within six months, at which time the additional benefits would be available to him, that he had found the wаges to be.satisfactory, and that he was qualified for the position. The Board of Reviеw found the commuting distance to be reasonable and the evidence regarding the рurchase of tools to be inconclusive. The Board found no evidence that the temporary employment would have prevented his seeking permanent employmеnt elsewhere in the interim. Considering the above factors, the Board found that appellant had refused an offer of suitable work without good cause.
The duty and obligation of an unemployed individual to accept available and suitable work may exist regardlеss of whether the work is temporary employment or full-time employment. The suitability of the wоrk does not require that the employment offered be equal in every respect to the individual’s prior working conditions, or that the pay be equal or better than previously earned. Wacaster v. Daniels,
On appeal, we review the findings of the Board of Review in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and will reverse only if we conclude that those findings are not supported by substantial evidenсe. From our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the Board’s finding that appellant had failed without good cause to accept suitable and avаilable work offered him is not supported by substantial evidence.
Appellant next contends that the Board of Review erroneously failed to consider additional evidence submitted by him when making its determination of the issue of good cause. We disagree.
While his aрpeal was pending before the Board of Review, appellant filed with the Boаrd a letter setting forth a list of what he considered to be the tools he would be required tо purchase and their costs. The Board refused to consider the information and so rеcited in its opinion. We conclude that this action was proper, for the Board of Review is not permitted to accept additional evidence in appeals pending before it. Smith v. Everett,
Affirmed.