*1 TELEPHONE, L.P. BELL SOUTHWESTERN of Arkansas Security Department Employment DIRECTOR E. Barkley
and Stephen E 04-385 Arkansas
Court of Appeals 30, 2005 November delivered Opinion denied 4, 2006.*] [Rehearing January * CRABTREE,J., grantrehearing. *2 A. Barton and H. Skinner; Mitchell, Edward
Cynthia Will- iams, P.L.L.C., Gates & Selig, Woodyard, by: Hermann Ivester and McConnell, G. Laney appellant. Pruitt,
Alan for appellees. Layton Roaf, Appellant Ju BellBell 8, fromfrom the November Telephone appeals Andree Board of Review’s decision benefits under granting unemployment Ann. Code 2003) to Stephen appellee Barkley, work-force reduction participated On Southwestern Bell that the Board’s deci process. appeal, sion that left his after it “asked for volunteers” substantial force reduction for a permanent of Ark. an erroneous construction it and that amounts evidence affirm. We 11-10-513(c). Code Ann. Bell in for Southwestern who began working Barkley, on technician July as a
ended his cable-splicing Program Bell’s Severance Voluntary after participating Bell’s collective requires (“VSP”). bargaining agreement for a voluntary sign up to offer eligible employees opportunity that there when determines employ- surplus severance package will be necessary. area and that awork reduction in a certain ees the most senior on seniority, in this VSP is based Participation that contains until are allowed workgroup participate Southwest- number is reduced employees. *3 when not Bell will to off begin enough eligible ern lay least senior in and it will with the the begin employees participate first. employee in the Bell announced in surplus Paragould in but Para- 2003. was Jonesboro,
summer of employed Barkley area. is within his force Barkley, gould adjustment According but he was there was not a within his surplus particular workgroup, the there was a within his force VSP because eligible surplus area. He Candidate “Voluntary Request adjustment requested 9, 2003, on from his and filled out stating Form” manager May received a he in the VSP. then that wished Barkley participate Offer,” Severance Candidate Conditional “Voluntary Request that his been received that the which stated form had and company candidates. to establish a severance voluntary was trying pool Bell to deter- The letter that Southwestern was trying explained should a match mine if an offer accept Barkley willing for his The letter also stated if Barkley be made position. form, the offer the his decided he was and willing accept sign decision was irrevocable. He testified document on 2003. this Barkley signed June conditional the and had been made
that he had VSP applied at he did the offers on occasions but that not offers accept prior instance, In this times because he was not “ready go.” those Bell severance offered Barkley payment $244,000, $46,700, a sum of approximately lump pension payment not decided for vacation taken. Barkley $4000 and days offer, another Bell matched him with and Southwestern to take have had Barkley in who would lost his job Paragould, employee that offer. testified Barkley voluntary accepted his was not in that at time and that he have job could jeopardy at continued to work had if he not participated in the VSP. it was According Barkley, “general knowledge” within that the was VSP available once there was an company He that stated no one at Southwestern Bell surplus. him and asked him to volunteer. approached Simmons, Allen testified Jay Barkley’s workgroup manager, that of the was one in his and Barkley that workgroup asked out to fill Barkley Candidate Form” “Voluntary Request after the was announced within his force area. adjustment He corroborated Barkley’s was not at testimony Barkley’s job Simmons, risk. the VSP forms on his desk so According kept form, out, could fill it employee and send it in. request He stated that the from employee was matched Paragould had taken over Barkley Barkley’s position Jonesboro. Bell, After with Southwestern leaving Barkley was denied the Arkansas unemployment compensation by Employ ment on the Security basis that he (ESD) Department voluntarily without cause left his work. good to the Barkley appealed Appeal Tribunal, and it reversed the ESD’s decision and awarded him unem benefits, that he was from ployment his last work for discharged reasons other than misconduct in connection the work. South Review, western Bell then to the Board of affirmed and it appealed modified Tribunal’s decision. It found that Appeal entitled to benefits under Ark. Code Ann. because he 11-10-513(c), participated *4 work force after the had announced a employer reduction and pending asked for volunteers. the Tribunal’s decision appealed Appeal to the Arkansas Court of that the Board’s decision Appeals, arguing was not substantial by evidence and that it supported amounted to an erroneous construction of This court reversed 11-10-513(c). § and remanded the case so that the Board could make a as to whether, so, manner, and if in what Southwestern Bell asked for remand, volunteers pursuant 11-10-513(c). the Board Upon § Review, 8, 2004, of in its dated November opinion found that Southwestern Bell did ask for volunteers within the plain meaning of and held that was entitled Barkley unemploy ment benefits. Southwestern Bell now the decision the appeals Review, Board of that the Board’s decision was not arguing again substantial evidence and that it by amounted an supported erroneous construction of Ark. Code Ann. 11-10-513 (c). are of Review of the Board the findings appeal, On evidence. Billings substantial by are if they affirmed Substantial Director, App. as mind accept a reasonable might as is such evidence evidence evidence review the Id. We a conclusion. to support adequate Even where Id. the Board’s findings. most favorable the light have reached the Board might is which there evidence upon to determination conclusion, review limited different appellate its decision reach reasonably upon whether Board could Id. evidence before it. 11-10-513(a)(1) Annotated section
Arkansas Code benefits if that “an individual shall 2003) states disqualified cause connected with or she without good however, added last left his or her work.” legislature, work effective on to this statute that became April new subsection states: which sectionif he or under this No individualshall (c)(1) disqualified she left his or her work because he or voluntarily partici- she last pated in work force and reduction its employer pending volunteers.
askedfor shall be considered initiated (2) employer Such actions employer incentives offered regardless any layoffs induce its to volunteer. shallbe under 11-10-517. incentivesreceived Any reported added.)
(Emphasis had does the fact that Southwestern Bell not dispute but it that there declared a in certain workgroups, as is no evidence that “asked for volunteers” for under Ark. Code Ann. 11-10-513(c)(1). According Bell, for the VSP without chose apply volunteer, that it asked asked to and the Board’s finding being its this available to volunteers by making option of the statute. erroneous construction *5 has been addressed at issue in this case VSP previously in in of Code Ann. 11-10-513 this court the context Ark. § in who chose court held This Billings employees Billings, supra. 308
to leave their with Southwestern Bell employment by participating in the VSP were not entitled to benefits under unemployment 11-10-513, however, 11-10-513. The 2003 amendment § was not in effect time at the these were denied benefits. employees case, In the the 2003 amendment that added present subsection (c) 11-10-513 was at the time of applicable Barkley’s separation fact, from his and the Board’s decision. In the Board awarded Barkley pursuant benefits to to Ark. Code Ann. 11-10— 513(c).
The intent of the Arkansas
controls the
Legislature
construction of
Everett,
our
laws.
v.
unemployment security
Feagin
59,
9 Ark.
In its brief Southwestern Bell states after declares a are surplus, canvassed determine if “employees are inter- they ested in the VSP.” are then allowed to Eligible employees apply under which the offered severance employee may for their exchange retirement. voluntary Simmons testified that the Candidate Forms were Voluntary avail- Request able instance, on his desk to them. In this request area, was announced in adjustment decided for the VSP. He apply requested completed form, and Southwestern Bell sent him conditional offer. The *6 a added to would pool if Barkley accepted, stated offer would and that acceptance candidates of voluntary offer, Bell and Southwestern Barkley accepted irrevocable. would whose another job employee “matched” Barkley left his then employment at risk. Barkley otherwise be Bell. not did asserts that absolutely Bell strongly this case it did in that the thing It ask for volunteers. available, is to do as it the VSP ‘pursuant “make declared,” and that is contract’ whenever union [its] translated in the VSP was incorrectly by use of the term “offer” that Bell maintains to mean “ask.” Southwestern providing Board not the same as to volunteer is for its an employees opportunity however, not This is for volunteers. asking argument, persuasive. have addressed each Bell employee volunteer, but Southwestern them if ask they directly there the VSP available to when Bell’s making policy the means which the is an announced employ- surplus provided to leave their reduce ees could volunteer Bell to This for Southwestern way essentially surplus. solicit volunteers policy for its VSP. does not in statutory
This court
interpreta
engage
sense and
absurd results. Greenv.
tions that
common
defy
produce
Milk,
339 Ark.
Affirmed. J.,
Baker, agrees. J.,
Crabtree, concurs. At issue in this concurring. ap- Crabtree, Jud g g e,e, Terry peal newly-enacted provision benefits to 11-10-513 that allows unemployment compensation has his when he “voluntarily participated individual job quits work force after em in its reduction and asked for ployer pending volunteers.” Ark. Code Ann. I am in 9-10-513(c)(1) *7 statute, full Roaf s of the agreement Judge as application written, to the facts of this case and the holding Board’s decision is substantial evidence. I write separately concern about benefits express my awarded to someone being this claimant’sposition.
The policy objectives law are security “lighten burden which fall with crushing upon [the] worker and or his her unemployed family” benefits for “persons no fault unemployed of their own.” through 11-10-102(1) & statute (Repl. under consideration, here, as does not applied these comport laudable In goals. the claimant received a accepting $46,700, severance lump-sum pension payment $244,000, $4,000 for addition, unused vacation time. Now in the statute him to receive permits unemployment compensation, even his though from work caused no voluntary separation undue Not who hardship. every person participates qualifying will be fortunate voluntary layoff to receive a lucrative enough and thus the package, statute serves those protect individuals However, in their time deserving of need. it strikes me as obscene for benefits to be awarded unemployment someone $295,000 who received almost quitting job. Although laws, legislators, to write the this case judges, demonstrates the statute too perhaps to benefit sweeps broadly persons are not financially burdened aby voluntary layoff.