By Payroll and Entitlements Editorial Staff
The claimant, the city’s animal control supervisor, sent a letter to both the police chief and his assistant chief that seemed to indicate he was retiring. But when the letter was accepted, he insisted it was not his intent to retire and he communicated several times with the chief, mayor, and the city’s board of directors where he questioned whether the chief had the legal authority to interpret the intent of the letter. He believed that only the board of directors had that authority. The claimant was denied unemployment benefits. He continued to raise the issue of the chief’s authority to interpret the intent of his letter with the tribunal, the Board, and then to the lower court. The court ruled that when an administrative agency fails to make a finding on a pertinent issue, the reviewing court does not decide the question in the first instance but instead remands for a ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the case to the Board to rule on the issue of authority (Danny Bugg v. DWS and City of Hot Springs, Ark. Ct. of App., DIVISION III. No. E-18-171, February 27, 2019).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More