ÿWPC …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáw@ðn­0 Ý Æå 0L« 0J÷ 0TA 0^• 0hó 0r[ 0|Í 0†I 0Ï 0N_ B­ 1uÊ 0d? 0@£ D3ã D+U6A AYwÆÐ 0F–U >ÜB)DCC AM†U*Óýv~ vÓ‹ AO^Æ­ 0Ds D/· Bæ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ ½Q x°°3|x’  ~ D € { D‚ ƒ „ … D† Ó€ «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à d !"# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd'ÈÈÈÈdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New3)4+Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd€)7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÔ€9ÔÔ€9ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€9XÔÌÌJanuary€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€)‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÞgXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€5Ô›Þ ÞÌTAMMY€PAYNE,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9606„CH„00278Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àÌMARGARET€C.€CULPEPPER,€in€herà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌcapacity€as€Commissioner€ofà à)à àNo.€95„3333„II̜ـ€ÙßR€8:7A1-j|~þ:` ç `€€@ÿRß›the€Tennessee€Department€ofà à)ÌEmployment€Security;à à)Ìà àà à)Ìandà àà à)Ìà àà à)ÌDENIM€PROCESSING,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€5¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€HOBBS€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€5XÔPAUL€E.€DROZDOWSKIÌRural€Legal€Services€of€Tennessee,€Inc.ÌP.€O.€Box€5209ÌOak€Ridge,€Tennessee€37831Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌKIMBERLY€M.€FRAYNÌJENNIFER€H.€SMALLÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€1510ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0499Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEESÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€5¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓÔ€5°ÔOÔ€5¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€5XÔà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€Plaintiff€Tammy€Payne,€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏaffirming€an€order€of€the€Department€of€Employment€Security€which€found€that€Plaintiff€was€notÏentitled€to€unemployment€compensation.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€Tammy€Payne€was€discharged€from€her€job,€and€subsequently€applied€forÏunemployment€benefits€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€50„7„303€(1991).€€She€wasÏdenied€benefits€because€of€work„related€misconduct.€€The€appeals€tribunal,€following€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€affirmed€the€decision€concluding€that€"[t]he€facts€do€show€that€the€claimantÏdisregarded€the€employerððs€interests€and€willfully€acted€against€the€best€interests€of€the€employer.€.Ï.€.€€Claimant€was€discharged€for€excessive€tardiness€and€absenteeism.€€She€was€given€warnings.€ÏClaimant€continued€to€miss€a€lot€of€work€and€was€late€for€no€reason."€Subsequently,€these€findingsÏwere€adopted€by€the€Board€of€Review€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Employment€Security.€ÏFrom€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review,€the€plaintiff€appealed€to€the€Chancery€Court€forÏDavidson€County,€which€entered€an€order€affirming€the€final€decision€and€dismissing€the€plaintiff'sÏpetition€for€certiorari.ÌÌÔ€9Ôà àÔ€5ÔThe€evidence€showed€that€Ms.€Payne€worked€as€a€presser€at€Denim€Processing,€Inc.Ï(DPI)€from€July€of€1990€to€April€of€1995.€€Ms.€Payne,€who€was€a€single€parent€of€a€five„year„oldÏson,€worked€a€shift€€from€6:00€a.m.€to€2:30€p.m.€€€In€November€of€1993,€Ms.€Payne€was€injuredÍin€an€auto€accident€causing€her€to€miss€eleven€days€of€work€the€following€December€for€surgeryÏand€causing€her€to€be€on€medical€leave€for€all€of€January€and€February€of€1994€in€order€to€recover.€ÏShe€returned€to€work€in€March€of€1994€but€was€absent€two€days€in€March,€one€day€in€April,€andÏone€day€in€May€due€to€illness.€€In€addition,€she€only€worked€partial€hours€on€another€day€in€May.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€that€Ms.€Payne€provided€doctors'€excuses€for€any€of€these€absences€otherÏthan€the€one€in€April.€€On€May€18,€DPI€gave€Ms.€Payne€her€first€warning€which€stated€that€sheÏ"ha[d]€missed€4ðð€days€in€€3€months."€€In€a€specific€place€on€the€warning€form,€Ms.€PayneÏmarked€that€she€"disagree[d]€with€Employerððs€description€of€violation."€€No€disciplinary€actionÏwas€taken.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Payne€was€then€absent€one€day€in€June€for€an€appointment€for€her€son€for€whichÏshe€provided€a€doctorððs€excuse.€€She€was€absent€a€day€in€July€and€a€day€in€August€both€for€whichÏshe€produced€excuses.She€then€spent€two€days€in€August€working€partial€hours€€after€which€sheÏreceived€a€second€warning,€on€August€31,€1994,€for€missing€"4€days€since€5„18„94."€€This€time,ÏMs.€Payne€marked€that€she€"concurr[ed]€with€Employerððs€statement."€€Again,€no€disciplinaryÏaction€was€taken.€€ÌÌà àIn€September€of€1994,€Ms.€Payne€missed€one€day€€for€family€illness€and€another€for€anÏaccident€off€the€job€both€for€which€she€provided€doctors'€excuses.€€In€October,€she€workedÏpartially€on€two€days€and€completely€missed€another€day€due€to€an€accident€off€the€job.€€For€one€ofÏthe€partial„hour€days,€she€provided€a€doctor's€excuse€relating€to€her€son's€medical€care.€After€beingÏabsent€on€November€1€for€illness,€on€November€2,€1994,€she€was€given€her€third€warning€forÏmissing€"4€days€and€5ðð€hours€since€8„31„94."€€As€she€had€with€her€first€warning,€Ms.€PayneÏnoted€her€disagreement€with€DPI's€description€of€the€violation.€€And€as€with€both€prior€warnings,Ïno€disciplinary€action€was€taken.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Payne€missed€six€more€days€in€November€for€eye€surgery€related€to€the€autoÏaccident€she€had€the€year€before.€€She€provided€an€excuse€for€these€absences€in€which€the€doctorÏsuggested€she€miss€all€but€the€last€two€of€these€days.€€She€missed€one€more€excused€day€inÏNovember.€€In€December,€Ms.€Payne€missed€one€day€for€an€accident€off€the€job€for€which€she€didÏnot€provide€œan›€excuse.€€In€January€of€1995,€she€had€one€day€of€holiday,€she€was€late€for€one€dayÏfor€her€childððs€teacher€meeting,€and€she€missed€one€day€œdue›€to€her€son€being€sick€for€which€sheÏhad€a€doctor's€note.€€In€February,€Ms.€Payne€missed€one€day€for€her€sonððs€illness€and€one€to€takeÏhim€to€the€dentist.€€She€provided€an€excuse€for€the€latter.€€She€missed€a€third€day€in€February€forÏbad€road€conditions.€€ÌÌà àOn€March€1,€Ms.€Payne€was€late€and€then€had€to€leave€early€for€contact€lens€problems.€ÏOn€March€3,€she€was€late€because€of€bad€road€conditions.€€On€March€6,€she€was€absent€due€to€carÏtrouble.€€On€March€9,€16,€and€25,€she€was€late€to€work€for€no€stated€reason.€€On€March€31,€sheÏhad€to€leave€early€for€her€son's€illness.€€She€provided€no€doctorsðð€excuses€for€the€March€absences.€ÏMs.€Payne€had€a€doctor's€appointment€on€April€12€for€which€she€did€provide€an€excuse.€€HerÏsupervisor€approved€an€April€18€absence€€for€her€to€take€her€son€to€the€doctor.€€When€she€returnedÏto€work€on€April€19€with€a€doctorððs€excuse,€she€was€fired.€€At€the€hearing€before€the€appealsÏtribunal,€Ms.€Payne€claimed€that€she€was€never€taken€to€the€office€and€told€that€she€would€be€firedÏif€she€missed€a€certain€amount€of€time.€€Also€at€the€hearing,€Mr.€Triplett,€the€plant€manager,Ïclaimed€that€the€absences€for€medical€appointments€and€bad€roads€did€not€count€against€Ms.€Payne.ÌÔ€1ÔÌà àÔ€5ÔDPI€had€given€its€employees€a€new€handbook€in€April€of€1995.€€Ms.€Payne€testified€atÏthe€hearing€that€she€thought€the€new€handbook€meant€that€all€prior€absences€were€dismissed€andÏthat€the€number€of€absences€that€she€was€allowed€to€miss€had€started€over€as€of€the€first€of€April.€ÏMr.€Triplett,€testified€that€the€handbook€changed€certain€of€the€businessððs€procedures€such€as€howÏit€handled€write„ups€and€warnings,€but€not€the€number€of€permissible€absences.€The€handbookÍwas€not€made€a€part€of€the€evidence.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Ms.€Payne€argues€that€there€is€not€substantial€and€material€evidence€that€(1)€ÏDPI€warned€her€that€she€would€be€fired€if€she€did€not€improve€her€absenteeism€and€(2)€€that€Ms.ÏPayne€willfully€disregarded€the€employerððs€interest.ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€judicial€review€of€a€lower€tribunal€decision€concerning€the€approval€orÏdenial€of€unemployment€benefits€is€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€œ50„7„304(i)(Supp.€1996).€€The€code€provides€that,€"[t]he€chancellor€may€affirm€.€.€.€reverse,€remand€orÏmodify€the€decision€[of€the€board€of€review]€if€the€rights€of€the€petitioner€have€been€prejudicedÏbecause€the€administrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions€or€decisions€are€.€.€.€[u]nsupported€byÏevidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€light€of€the€entire€record."€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€50„7„304(i)(2)(E).€€The€statute€further€requires€that€"in€determining€the€substantiality€of€the€evidence,€theÏchancellor€shall€take€into€account€whatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€theÏchancellor€shall€not€substitute€the€chancellor's€judgment€for€that€of€the€board€of€review€as€to€theÏweight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact."€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€50„7„304(i)(3).ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€this€court€must€also€determine€whether€there€is€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€lower€tribunalÔ€1Ô.€€Ô€5Ôò òòòJohnson€v.€Bibleó óóó,€707ÏS.W.2d€510,€512€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€Substantial€and€material€evidence€has€been€defined€asÏ"'such€relevant€evidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€might€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€andÏsuch€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€actions€under€consideration.'"€€ò òòòSouthern€Ry.ÏCo.€v.€State€Bd.€Of€Equalization,ó óóó€682€S.W.2d€196,€199€(Tenn.€1984)(quoting€ò òòòPace€v.ÏGarbage€Distóóó ó.,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463€(Tenn.€App.€1965)).€€If€the€record€contains€suchÏevidence,€review€by€this€court€is€confined€to€whether€the€lower€tribunal€erred€when€it€applied€theÏlaw€to€the€facts€found,€that€is,€review€is€confined€to€a€de€novo€review€as€to€questions€of€law.€Íò òòòPerryman€v.€Bibleó óóó,€653€S.W.2d€424,€429€(Tenn.€App.€1983);€ò òòòIrvin€v.€Binkleyó óóó,€577ÏS.W.2d€677,€678€(Tenn.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àIn€Plaintiff's€first€argument,€she€claims€that€the€employer€failed€to€present€substantialÏand€material€evidence€that€it€warned€the€plaintiff€she€would€be€fired€if€she€did€not€improve€herÏabsenteeism.€€However,€we€are€unable€to€find€any€Tennessee€statute€or€case€law€which€creates€inÏan€employer€an€affirmative€duty€to€warn€an€employee€of€eminent€termination€due€to€excessiveÏincidents€of€absence€or€tardiness.€€While€it€is€true€that€employer€warnings€are€one€of€the€elements€aÏcourt€considers€when€determining€whether€an€employee's€behavior€equals€misconduct,€a€"final"Ïwarning€is€not€a€prerequisite€for€a€finding€of€misconduct.€€Rather,€"[t]he€degree€of€disregard€forÏthe€employer's€interest€shown€by€absenteeism€that€will€equate€with€misconduct,€may€involve€manyÏfactors€and€the€weight€and€significance€to€be€assigned€them€defies€precise€delineation."€€ò òòòWallaceÏv.€Stewartó óóó,€559€S.W.2d€647,€649€(Tenn.€1977).€€Factors€which€are€considered€by€courtsÏinclude€the€following:€whether€a€policy€as€to€absenteeism€exists,€how€many€incidents€of€tardinessÏor€absenteeism€exist€relative€to€the€length€of€time€at€issue,€whether€sufficient€advance€notice€ofÏabsences€are€forgiven€by€the€employer,€and€whether€absenteeism€continued€to€occur€in€the€face€ofÏthe€employer's€warnings.€€See,€e.g.€ò òòòMiotke€v.€Kelleyó óóó,€713€S.W.2d€910,€913€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986);€ò òòòPerrymanó óóó,€653€S.W.2d;€ò òòòLee€v.€Traughberó óóó,€No.€64,€1989€WL€22755€(Tenn.€App.Ï1989).€€€€ÌÌà àRepeated€absenteeism€and€tardiness€are€implicit€violations€of€the€basic€"right€of€theÏemployer€to€expect€employees€[to]€appear€for€work"€when€they€have€agreed€to.€€ò òòòWallaceó óóó,€559ÏS.W.2d€at€648.€The€contract€of€employment€which€exists€between€employee€and€employer€isÏbased€on€the€employee's€duty€to€appear€for€work.€€An€employee's€repeated€breach€of€this€dutyÏwould€be€minimized€if€this€court€should€adopt€the€rule€that€an€employer€is€responsible€for€warningÏemployees€that€their€failure€to€comply€with€contractual€duties€will€result€in€termination.€€WeÍtherefore€refuse€to€find€that€the€employer€has€such€an€affirmative€duty.ÌÌà àFinally,€while€the€employer€did€not€issue€a€"last€chance"€warning,€we€think€it€isÏsignificant€that€the€plaintiff€received€written€warnings€concerning€absenteeism€on€three€separateÏoccasions.€€Moreover,€the€defendant's€plant€manager€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àWe€felt€we€had€worked€with€[the€plaintiff]€ever€since€she€had€been€here.€ÏShe€had€been€an€absentee€problem€and€a€portion€of€that€[was]€completelyÏunderstandable€in€„€in€the€years€that€she€had€been€here;€but€it€continued.€ÏNothing€seemed€to€improve€any€up€until€the€year€of€95€.€.€.€we€think€thisÏcomes€to€the€level€of€what€we€can€do€as€far€as€absentees€were€concerned,Ïabsentees,€being€late,€leaving€early.ÌÔ€1ÔÌÓÓÔ€5ÔIn€light€of€the€plaintiff's€established€pattern€of€conduct€and€of€the€warnings€she€received,€weÏrespectfully€disagree€with€the€plaintiff's€contention€that€she€was€not€aware€that€her€tardiness€andÏabsences€constituted€behavior€which€breached€her€duties€as€an€employee.€€Plaintiff€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€her€pattern€of€absenteeism€and€tardiness€threatened€her€continued€employment€withÏher€employer.Ô€1ÔÌÌà àÔ€5ÔIn€view€of€our€determination€that€the€employer€has€no€duty€to€issue€a€"last„chance"Ïwarning,€we€address€the€plaintiff's€challenge€to€the€Board€of€Review's€finding€that€sheÏ"disregarded€the€employer's€interests€and€willfully€acted€against"€this€interest.€€The€statute€providesÏthat€"[a]€claimant€shall€be€disqualified€for€benefits€.€.€.€[i]f€the€commissioner€finds€that€a€claimantÏhas€been€discharged€from€such€claimants'€most€recent€work€for€misconduct€connected€with€suchÏclaimants'€work."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2).€€In€ò òòòArmstrong€v.€Neel,€725€S.W.2dÏ953€ó óóó(Tenn.€App.€1986),€this€court€defined€misconduct€related€to€work€as€"conduct€evidencingÏsuch€willful€and€wanton€disregard€of€an€employee's€interest€as€is€found€in€deliberate€violations€orÏdisregard€of€standards€of€behavior€which€the€employer€has€the€right€to€expect€of€his€employee,€orÏin€carelessness€or€negligence€of€such€degree€or€recurrence€as€to€manifest€equal€culpability,Ïwrongful€intent€or€evil€design,€or€to€show€an€intentional€and€substantial€disregard€of€theÍemployer's€interest€or€the€employee's€duties€and€obligations€to€the€employer.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€956€(quotingÏò òòòBoynton€Cab€Co.€v.€Neubeckó óóó,€296€N.W.€636,€640€(Wis.€1940)).€€As€we€have€alreadyÏstated,€"[n]o€aspect€of€contract€of€employment€is€more€basic€than€the€right€of€the€employer€toÏexpect€employees€will€appear€for€work€on€the€day€and€at€the€hour€agreed€upon."€€ò òòòWallaceó ó,€óó559ÏS.W.2d€at€648.€€The€supreme€court€in€ò òòòWallaceóóó ó€further€said€that,€"[p]ersistent€failure€to€honor€thatÏobligation€evinces€a€substantial€disregard€for€the€employer's€interest€and€may€justify€a€finding€ofÏmisconduct€connected€with€the€employment."€€ò òòòId.ó ó€óóÌÌà àWe€think€the€evidence€clearly€shows€that€the€plaintiff€willfully€and€wantonlyÏdisregarded€her€duties€as€an€employee.€€Plaintiff's€shift€ended€at€2:30€p.m.€€Her€tardiness€andÏabsences€which€were€occasioned€by€appointments€at€her€son's€school€or€by€repair€work€done€onÏher€vehicle€could€have€been€scheduled€during€normal€business€hours€after€plaintiff's€shift€wasÏcompleted.€€In€addition,€a€number€of€plaintiff's€absences€due€to€family€illness€could€have€beenÏavoided€if€she€had€scheduled€her€son's€medical€appointments€after€2:30€p.m.€€This€failure€toÏschedule€personal€matters€at€a€time€which€does€not€conflict€with€the€obligation€to€appear€for€workÏconstitutes€intentional€disregard€for€the€interest€of€the€employer.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€disregard€for€her€duty€as€an€employee€is€further€illustrated€by€certainÏincidents€of€tardiness€which€occurred€in€March€of€1995€prior€to€her€termination.€€Within€a€threeÏweek€period,€Plaintiff€was€late€to€work€without€excuse€on€three€occasions€and€on€one€of€these,€sheÏwas€late€three€hours€and€forty„five€minutes.€€Such€recurring,€unexplained€tardiness€indicates€aÏdisregard€for€her€employer's€interest.€ÌÌà àWe€think€that€ò òòòWallace€v.€Stewart,€ó óóó559€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1977),€is€on€point€withÏthe€instant€case.€€In€ò òòòWallaceó óóó,€during€a€thirty„two€month€employment€period€the€plaintiff€wasÏabsent€forty„five€days€and€tardy€fifty€days€for€a€total€of€ninety„five€days€or€some€four€days€perÍmonth€of€employment.€€Thirty„two€of€the€absences€were€due€to€illness€of€herself€or€of€one€of€herÏchildren,€as€were€ten€of€the€tardiness€incidents.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€At€647.€€"For€reasons€other€than€illness,Ïclaimant€was€absent€[thirteen]€days€and€reported€late€for€work€on€[forty]€additional€days,€theÏexcuses€being€traffic,€no€ride,€car€trouble,€flat€tire,€no€babysitter,€business,€and€the€like."€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€AtÏ648.€€In€ò òòòWallaceó óóó,€the€employee€was€given€four€warnings€before€termination.€€The€supreme€courtÏheld€that€the€record€was€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€misconduct€based€on€warnings€given€andÏall€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€649.€€In€the€instant€case,€plaintiff€was€absent€or€tardy€aÏtotal€of€thirty„eight€days€over€a€twelve€month€period€which€was€more€than€three€days€per€month.€Ï(This€excludes€forty„nine€days€of€leave€of€absence€for€recovery€due€to€a€non„work„related€carÏaccident.)€€The€trial€court€found€that€plaintiff€was€absent€in€1994€"for€two€months€on€a€leave€ofÏabsence,€eleven€days€for€personal€illness,€five€days€due€to€accidents€off€the€job,€one€day€due€toÏfamily€illness,€and€five€partial€days€for€various€reasons."€€In€the€four€months€the€petitioner€workedÏin€1995,€she€was€"absent€three€days€for€family€illness,€once€for€personal€reasons,€once€due€toÏtransportation€problems,€and€once€due€to€bad€weather.€€She€worked€only€partial€days€on€threeÏoccasions.€€She€was€also€tardy€for€five€days€of€work."ÌÌà àAs€in€ò òòòWallaceó óóó,€Plaintiff€here€received€prior€written€notice€of€the€employer's€policiesÏconcerning€absenteeism€and€tardiness€and€was€subjected€to€three€written€disciplinary€warnings.€ÏWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€instant€case€is€controlled€by€ò òòòWallace€v.€Stewartó óóó€and,€therefore,Ïthe€department€and€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€the€plaintiff€is€not€entitled€to€receiveÏunemployment€compensation€benefits€due€to€her€misconduct€related€to€work.€€The€judgment€of€theÏchancery€court€is€affirmed€with€costs€assessed€to€the€plaintiff/appellant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.Ìà àÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÔ€1ÔÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌÔ€5ÔWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE