Employers frequently use lead persons who aren’t supervisors with the authority to fire employees. However, problems can arise when employees believe such leads can fire them. A recent case before the Arkansas Court of Appeals illustrates this problem.
Background
In an unbriefed appeal to the court of appeals, Erin Daniels challenged the Arkansas Board of Review’s determination that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause, losing the right to unemployment benefits. While the court generally defers to the board’s determinations of facts, credibility, and weight, in this case, the court overrode those findings and reversed.
Daniels worked at Producers Rice Mill from April 2019 to June 2019, when, according to his application for unemployment benefits, he was terminated by his supervisor. Producers disputed his account, asserting he voluntarily quit and was a “no call/no show.”
The Division of Workforce Services denied Daniels’s application for benefits, finding he was “discharged from [his] job on 6/21/19 because [he was] absent and failed to properly notify the employer. The claimant’s action constitutes misconduct connected with the work.”
Daniels appealed, and a hearing was conducted before the Arkansas Appeals Tribunal, where he and Michelle Key, Producers’ human resources (HR) representative, testified. Key noted Daniels was a “stacker” at Producers and that his last day was June 19, 2019.
When asked why he was no longer employed, Key said he quit: “He was caught sleeping and then did not return the next two days. So we took that as a voluntary quit.” She added that he didn’t attempt to return to work and didn’t call in the two days he was absent after his last day of work.
When Daniels was permitted to ask questions of Key, he inquired whether she was aware he had been called into the office of his supervisor, Ms. Gale, and been told he was terminated. Key answered that Ms. Gale wasn’t the supervisor and didn’t have the authority to terminate anyone. He responded that if Ms. Gale hadn’t told him not to return, he would still be working there. Key conceded she wasn’t present for the discussion between Daniels and Ms. Gale but rather obtained her information from his employment record.
The hearing officer asked Daniels what Ms. Gale’s job title was, and he answered that she was “the one every day that put us in position, told us everything, who got onto people. From my understanding, she was the supervisor.” He explained that Ms. Gale brought him into her office and told him he was being discharged because she had been told he was asleep.
He didn’t go to HR to discuss his situation, saying he “left it alone because it was out of my hands. I didn’t know exactly what to do or how to—I didn’t know what to do besides, you know, besides what she told me.” He concluded his testimony by reiterating that if he hadn’t been terminated, he would still be there.
The Tribunal subsequently affirmed the Division’s determination that Daniels was terminated because he stopped reporting to work and that he left his work without good cause. The Board of Review upheld the Tribunal, and Daniels appealed to the court of appeals.
Court of Appeals Reverses
The court noted that pursuant to Arkansas unemployment law, individuals don’t qualify for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily and without good cause left their last job. Whether there’s good cause for employees to quit their job is a question of fact, and good cause must be determined in light of the facts in each case.
The court found that “good cause” has generally been defined as “a cause that would reasonably impel the average able-bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her employment.” It further observed that good cause depends not only on the employee’s good faith, which includes the presence of a genuine desire to work, but also on an average employee’s reaction.
The court found that the facts in this case showed Daniels didn’t show up for work because he reasonably believed he had been fired by someone he believed had the authority to do so. It then concluded that an “average employee,” especially one who had been working for his employer for only two months, would understand he shouldn’t come back to work after his supervisor advises him he’s been fired.
Accordingly, it reversed the board’s decision and sent the case back for further action consistent with this opinion.
Bottom Line
You must make clear to employees who can and can’t fire them. The use of lead persons who don’t have supervisory powers but make work assignments and oversee productivity is common, but the problem of a lead’s apparent authority to act will be ever present unless you make sure employees know leads aren’t supervisors and aren’t permitted to fire them.
Steve Jones is an attorney with Jack Nelson Jones, PLLC, in Little Rock. You can reach him at sjones@jacknelsonjones.com.