MARY F. HAUSER 
APPELLANT 
V. 
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 
WORKFORCE SERVICES and 
SUPERIOR MAZDA 
APPELLEES 

Mary Hauser was disqualified for unemployment benefits by the Employment Security 
Department on the grounds that she left her last employment voluntarily and without good 
cause connected to the work. This decision was affirmed by both the Appeals Tribunal and 
the Board of Review. Hauser argues that the findings of the Board of Review are not 
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm. 

Hauser worked for Superior Nissan, located in Fayetteville, for seven years as the office 
manager. In February 2006, she asked Avis Bailey, one of the owners of the dealership, if she 
could be transferred to Superior Mazda in Bentonville. Hauser testified that she was moving 
to Bella Vista, which would have been about a ten to fifteen minute commute to Bentonville, 
as compared to the sixty-minute commute to the Fayetteville dealership. While working for
Superior Nissan, Hauser earned $6000 per month and received employee benefits along with 
four weeks of vacation. In exchange for the transfer, Hauser agreed to a pay cut to $5000 per 
month. The rest of her benefits and vacation time were to remain the same. This arrangement 
was memorialized, and Hauser began working at Superior Mazda on May 1, 2006. 

Hauser testified that on May 4, 2006, Bailey, accompanied by Betty Thomas, a 
consultant, advised Hauser that her position was being eliminated effective Friday, May 5, 
2006. Bailey further advised that most of the office functions were being consolidated in the 
Fayetteville office and that Thomas would be supervising that office as of June 1. Bailey did 
not offer Hauser another job or a transfer. Bailey did, however, advise Hauser that she would 
need to deal with Thomas about employment. Bailey then left the office. 

Thomas discussed a new position at the Fayetteville dealership with Hauser. Thomas 
advised that Hauser’s pay and benefits would remain the same. While Hauser had concerns 
about the details of the new job, she did not pursue the issue immediately because a coworker 
was present. 

The next day, May 5, 2006, Hauser returned to work and called Thomas to discuss the 
details about the new position in Fayetteville, as well as her prior arrangement with Bailey 
regarding the Bentonville position. Thomas, according to Hauser, went “ballistic” and yelled 
at Hauser that the terms of the new job in Fayetteville included a $5000 per month salary, 
benefits, and only two weeks vacation “like everyone else.” Hauser testified that she tried to
call Bailey two or three times that same morning to discuss the situation but was never able 
to reach her. Hauser made no other attempts to contact Bailey or Thomas. 

Hauser testified that around 2:00 p.m. on May 5, movers came into the office and 
packed up the desks and computers. At that time, Hauser approached her supervisor Ken 
Porter and asked if there was anything else she could do for the day. He responded “no,” and 
Hauser left. Hauser testified that Thomas tried to call Hauser the following Monday. Hauser 
did not return Thomas’s call. 

Neither Bailey nor Thomas testified in this case. The only witness to testify on behalf 
of the employer was Rob Busteed, the office manager of the Fayetteville dealership, who 
admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the events surrounding Hauser’s departure 
from Superior Mazda. Busteed testified that several other office managers whose positions 
were eliminated were offered (and accepted) new positions at the central office in Fayetteville. 
The Board of Review found that Hauser voluntarily left her work without good cause 
connected to the work. The Board noted that Hauser was offered a new job in Fayetteville 
and then listed some of the reasons Hauser did not pursue that job: extended commute; 
employer refused to put job details in writing; and reduced compensation. The Board found 
that while Hauser may have attempted several times to contact the owner on May 5, she did 
not make any further attempts thereafter, despite the fact that Thomas tried to call Hauser on 
May 8, possibly to ascertain why she was not at work. The Board concluded that “the 
claimant’s failure to attempt to resolve the situation indicates that she had no desire to 
continue working for the employer if she had to work in Fayetteville” and that “the
claimant’s failure to take appropriate steps to rectify the problem by discussing the situation 
with the owner ... is evidence that she has not established good cause to leave the 
employment.” 

On appeal, we review the findings of the Board in the light most favorable to the 
prevailing party, reversing only where the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial 
evidence. Carpenter v. Director, 55 Ark. App. 39, 929 S.W.2d 177 (1996). Even when there 
is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of our 
judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could reasonably reach its 
decision upon the evidence before it. Claflin v. Director, 53 Ark. App. 126, 920 S.W.2d 20 
(1996).

Whether there is good cause for an employee to quit her job is a question of fact. 
Claflin, 53 Ark. App. at 127, 920 S.W.2d at 21. “Good cause has been defined as a cause that 
would reasonably impel the average able-bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her 
employment.” Carpenter, 55 Ark. App. at 41, 929 S.W.2d at 178. A factor in determining 
good cause is “whether the employee took appropriate steps to rectify the problem.” Claflin, 
53 Ark. App. at 128, 920 S.W.2d at 22. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Board, we hold that there is 
substantial evidence to support its finding that Hauser voluntarily quit her position without 
good cause connected with the work, and more specifically, that Hauser failed to take 
appropriate steps to rectify the problem by discussing the situation with the owner. 
The undisputed evidence in this case shows that Hauser’s position was eliminated but 
that she was offered another job with the employer. We note that the new job offered to
Hauser would have required her to take a pay cut, increase her commute, and reduce her 
vacation time. However, testimony from the employer confirmed that several other office 
managers who lost their office-manager positions accepted new positions at the central office. 
Other evidence indicated that the employer was expecting Hauser to appear at work Monday, 
May 8, and when she did not do so, the employer attempted to call Hauser. Hauser did not 
return the call. Further, Hauser took no steps, beyond a couple of phone calls to Bailey 
(whom Hauser had worked with for seven years) the day after she was advised that her 
position was being eliminated, to rectify the situation. Under these circumstances, we 
conclude that the Board’s finding that Hauser quit without good cause connected with the 
work is supported by substantial evidence. 

Affirmed.