If a person is incarcerated, it is assumed to be because of something unlawful that he did. Thence he is out of work through his own fault. If it is used as a reason for termination, the termination is due to the fact that he was absent from work, he was by his own fault no longer able to come to work for the duration of the incarceration, and it's an unexcused absence. Considered misconduct for general purposes.
However, if he is shown to have been grabbed up by mistake, it is deemed to have been an absence that he could not have avoided and that he himself did not cause through his own actions, so the law would say that this absence, if he was terminated for it, could be considered a reason to be absent that was unavoidable and was not the claimant's fault. He can, under these circumstances, be approved to draw (according to the decision of the appeals judge/referee/agent).
But there were additional circumstances at play. By his own testimony, the employee admitted although he did call in and report his absence, that he falsified his reason for the absence.The employer does not restrict himself to saying only that he terminated for "incarceration." He can also elaborate that they discovered this person was lying to them about the reason he was out of work. How can you prove that they were not going to bring up the lying about the reason for being out of work before the hearing started and they heard the person's testimony that it was a mistaken arrest?
And the reason for termination can be anything in a right to work state. Even if the U.I. office picks a code for the reason for termination, that does not mean that the claim must be ajudicated any certain way. They are all based in the individual circumstances of the specific case and change according to gathered information. It may certainly be decided at a later date that a claim has been miscoded, or that a different code or circumstances apply.
Gross misconduct is loosely defined as something so serious that the employee knew it was wrong, even if it had never happened before and there was no hard and fast rule against it. Or if it was a "one time" thing that the employee knew was considered grounds for termination by company policy. For example, if the company had a policy that falsifying the reason for an absence is considered misconduct, or wearing red shoes to work was misconduct, or saying the word "bacon" at work is considered misconduct, then it is, whether it actually harms the employer or not.
The employer must convince the unemployment division that they had a valid misconducut reason to terminate the person.The testimony of the employer at this appeals hearing was apparently sufficient to convince the appeals person that the claimant's behavior was misconduct. If that was in the verbage of the decision letter as the reason the claim was denied, then that is what must be appealed to the board of review.
Your friend's argument to the board of review should be that his conduct did not rise to the level of gross misconduct, not that he should be approved according to unemployment law Number so and so that says a person who is wrongly incarcerated must be approved and the employer changed his reason for termination after they got to the hearing. That sort of tactic does not impress and usually will not result in a changed decision. The board will listen to the case and look at any additional evidence, such as the actual separation notice or letter if one was given, the reason that the employer gave to the unemployment office in the first place, the statement of the client, and the entire tape of the appeals hearing. They will determine if the law was followed in the appeals process and in the decision to deny benefits.