Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Carp Construction v. Stiles
Citations: 23 Ark. App. 24; 740 S.W.2d 632; 1987 Ark. App. LEXIS 2656Docket: E 87-32
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 9, 1987; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Steve Erixson filed a claim for unemployment benefits in November 1986 after quitting his job at Carp Construction, alleging a breach of his employment agreement due to the company's failure to raise his wage to $6.00 per hour after thirty days. The Employment Security Division initially found that Erixson had left voluntarily without good cause, leading to a denial of benefits. He appealed this decision to the Appeal Tribunal, where a hearing was held on December 11, 1986, in which Erixson testified, but Carp Construction did not attend. The Tribunal upheld the denial of benefits on December 16, 1986. Erixson subsequently appealed to the Arkansas Board of Review, which reviewed the record and testimony and determined that Erixson's resignation was indeed voluntary but made with good cause due to the wage issue and lack of full-time work. This decision granted him benefits, prompting Carp Construction to appeal, citing a lack of notice for the December 11 hearing and arguing that they were denied a fair opportunity to present their case. The court did not address the merits of Carp Construction’s claims regarding notice because the issue had not been raised during the earlier proceedings. Although Carp Construction claimed they were unaware of the hearing until after the Tribunal’s decision, they conceded having been informed before the Board of Review proceedings. The appellant attempted to justify its failure to raise the notice issue by arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to accept additional evidence, referencing a prior case. However, the court stated the Board had the discretion to consider additional evidence, and since Carp Construction did not bring up the notice issue in earlier stages, it would not be considered on appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision to grant Erixson benefits.