IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 2-682 / 02-1364
Filed September 11, 2002
ETCHER FARMS, INC.,
            Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and EMPLOYMENT APPEAL B
OARD,
            Defendants-Appellees.
            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for 
Monroe County, Daniel P. Wilson, Judge.
            Petitioner appeals from the district cs 
ourt’ruling on judicial review affirming the Employment 
Appeal Board’s decision to award unemployment bene
fits.  AFFIRMED.
            John Pabst of Pabst Law Firm, Albia, for 
appellant.
            Anita Garrison of Employment Appeal BoDes 
ard, Moines, for appellee.
            Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel
 and Mahan, JJ.
MAHAN, J.
            Petitioner appeals from the district cs 
ourt’ruling on judicial review affirming the Employment 
Appeal Board’s decision to award unemployment beneWe 
fits.  affirm.  
            Background Facts and Proceedings.  Brian 
Carlson was employed as a farm worker for Etcher Farms 
(Etcher) from October 20, 1999 to February 12, 200On 
1.  February 11, 2001, Carlson called Etcher and informed 
them he would not be able to work that day because
 he was unable to make childcare arrangements.  The 
following day, Carlson received a written reprimand 
from Scott Etcher for his absence on the previous Carlson 
day.  refused to sign the reprimand.  
            Carlson filed a claim for unemployment
 benefits.  His claim for benefits was denied on the 
ground that he was “discharged from work on 02/12/for 
01, insubordination.”  Carlson appealed, and following 
a hearing an administrative law judge found in Cars 
lson’favor concluding Etcher had not met its burden 
of establishing disqualifying job misconduct.  Neither 
Scott Etcher nor Carlson appeared at this hearing.
  Etcher appealed to the Employment Appeal Board, which 
upheld the decision.  The district court affirmed on 
judicial review.  
Award of Unemployment Benefits.  Etcher has appealed 
to this court claiming Carlson either left his employment 
(1) without good cause attributable to the employeor 
r; (2) for misconduct.  The administrative law judge 
in making her decision stated:
The claimant did not agree with the warning and refused 
to sign it.  The employer did not make any provisions 
for the claimant to sign acknowledging receipt of the 
warning rather than signing with the understanding
 that his signature indicated agreement with the wAlso 
arning.  the employer did not inform the claimant he 
would lose his job if he did not sign the warning.
  The claimant stated he was discharged and the employer 
claims he walked out after refusing to sign the waNeither 
rning.  the claimant nor Scott Etcher participated
 in the appeal hearing.  Considering the circumstances 
surrounding the issuance of the warning, and the fact 
the employer has the burden of proof and did not put 
forth its best evidence by having Scott Etcher participate 
in the hearing, the administrative law judge concludes 
the employer has not met its burden of proving disqualifying 
job misconduct.  
On judicial review, the district court agreed with
 the findings and conclusions of the administrative 
law judge and so do we.  As previously pointed out
, the employer has the burden of proof, and Etcher
 failed to meet this burden when Scott Etcher did not 
participate in the appeal hearing.  
            Etcher contends Greene v. Iowa Department 
of Job Services, 299 N.W.2d 651, 655 (Iowa 1980), is 
dispositive of this case.  We disagree.  The present 
case is distinguishable from Greene for two reasonFirst 
s.  of all, in Greene it is clear the claimant was
 informed by her supervisor, and testified she knethat 
w, by signing the reprimand she was merely acknowledging 
her receipt of the notice.  Greene, 299 N.W.2d at This 
655.  is not the situation in the instant case.  Sit 
econdly, is clear from the record the employer’s burden 
of proof has not been met in the instant case as it 
was in Greene.  Id.  Thus, we conclude the administrative 
law judge’s decision was supported by substantial 
evidence.  
AFFIRMED.