
    Argued and submitted July 30,
    reversed and remanded for reconsideration August 27, 1986
    HENSON Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
    
    (86-AB-204; CA A39168)
    723 P2d 1081
    Jerry E. Gastineau, Medford, argued the cause and submitted the brief for petitioner.
    Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, waived appearance for respondent Employment Division.
    Michael Brian, Medford, waived appearance for respondent Cascade Wood Products, Inc.
    Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an Employment Appeals Board order disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. ORS 657.176(2); OAR 471-30-038(3).

The referee concluded that petitioner had violated employer’s written policy by leaving work without first notifying his supervisor. However, the referee also concluded that the violation was not wilful and that petitioner’s misconduct was “an isolated instance of poor judgment” and, thus, was not misconduct for the purpose of denying benefits.

On review, the Board concluded that petitioner had wilfully violated employer’s written policy, and it set aside the referee’s order. However, the Board failed to address the referee’s conclusion that petitioner’s misconduct was an isolated instance of poor judgment. That was error. See Hillcrest Vineyard v. Bd. of Comm. Douglas Co., 45 Or App 285, 608 P2d 201 (1980).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.  