Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
BEKAERT STEEL AND WIRE APPELLANT
vs.
DIRECTOR ARKANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT APPELLEE
 
Case:
No. E93-220
 
Location:
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS DIVISION ONE
 
Date:
November 23 1994 Opinion Delivered
 
Attorneys:
CARY SCHWIMMER MEMPHIS TN. RONALD A. HOPE LITTLE ROCK. RONALD A. CALKINS LITTLE ROCK.
 
Court:
JUDITH ROGERS Court Jennings C.J. and Pittman J. agree.
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Judith Rogers
 

This is an appeal from the Board of Review's decision finding that claimant was discharged from his last work for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work. On appeal appellant argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and that in the alternative the case should be remanded for the board to make a finding of fact whether claimant consumed marijuana. We disagree and affirm.

The record reveals that appellant had an established policy against drug usage or possession by its employees. The record further discloses that appellant terminated claimant's employment because claimant allegedly failed a drug test which was in violation of appellant's management policy. During the telephone hearing before the Board appellant contended that claimant had smoked marijuana during lunch. According to a representative of appellant claimant tested positive for marijuana; however no test results were entered or offered as evidence.

The operations manager for appellant testified that the results were not introduced because he was under the impression that they could not be used unless claimant gave his permission. However he also admitted that appellant did not ask claimant for permission prior to the hearing. The team leader of claimant's group testified that he believed that claimant was discharged for the positive test result and that the proof was insufficient to establish that claimant was intoxicated on the job.

Claimant testified that he went to lunch with his wife on the night in question. He said that the two other employees accused of marijuana use ate at the same location but he was not with the other two. Claimant refuted appellant's assertions by arguing that he had not smoked marijuana on the night in question or at any recent time. He also stated that he was told the test results were positive but he was not told anything else about the tests nor allowed to view the results.

The Board found that appellant failed to meet its burden of proof that claimant was discharged from his last work for misconduct in connection with the work. The Board concluded that the mere assertion that the results were positive without anything else did not support the allegation and therefore did not rise to proof of misconduct. The Board also decided that the evidence failed to establish that claimant was intoxicated at work.

Whether an employee's actions constitute misconduct in connection with work sufficient to deny unemployment benefits is a question of fact for the Board. Grace Drilling Co. v. Director of Labor 31 Ark. App. 81 790 S.W.2d 907 (1990). On appeal the findings of fact of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Perdrix-Wang v. Director of Labor 42 Ark. App. 218 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993). We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's findings. Id.

Appellant contends that the Board required it to prove by a technical evidentiary requirement which has no application in unemployment proceedings that claimant was discharged for misconduct in connection with the work. We recognize that the Board is not bound by strict rules of evidence. Smith v. Everett Director 4 Ark. App. 197 629 S.W.2d 309 (1982). However there must be proof submitted to satisfy the requirement that the allegations of misconduct are substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence.

After reviewing the record it is clear that the Board found that the evidence presented failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claimant was discharged for misconduct. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that claimant was intoxicated on the job. The only evidence presented that displays a violation of appellant's policy is the testimony of appellant's representative who stated that claimant tested positive for marijuana. The determination of credibility of witnesses and the drawing of inferences is for the Board and not the appellate court. Grace Drilling Co. v. Director of Labor supra. Therefore we cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Appellant also argues that the Board failed to conduct its hearing in such a manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties. There is no indication from the record that appellant raised this issue below or objected to the hearing procedures. Because appellant failed to preserve this issue for appeal we do not address it. See Stiles Director of Labor v. Hopkins 282 Ark. 207 666 S.W.2d 703 (1984).

Affirmed.

Jennings C.J. and Pittman J. agree.