(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of the- majority opinion which concludes that Bomgaars Supply (Bomgaars) has waived its nonfatal jurisdiction contention by failing to comply with the notice of review requirements of SDCL 15-26A-22. From the remainder of the majority opinion, however, I dissent.
As the majority opinion notes, an unwritten policy existed which allowed Bomgaars’ employees to charge items for a short period of time. As the majority opinion fails to note, however, when items were removed from the store without being paid for, another store clerk was to prepare a charge slip for that merchandise and the charge slip was to be approved and initialed by the manager on duty. These charge slips were kept in an office and were supposed to indicate the items purchased and the employee purchasing them. This policy and these procedures were discussed in meetings and Barbara Gratzfeld (Claimant) was aware of the policy and the charging procedures. Claimant, however, took merchandise from the store without paying and without following her employer’s procedures.
On February 17, 1984, five charge slips were discovered underneath the cash drawer of a cash register. This was not the proper place for such charge slips.1 Two of the charge slips had “Barb” written on the top, but the remainder did not indicate which employee had made the charge. The charge slips were not dated, several did not indicate the items charged and none of the charge slips had been initialed by a manager. The assistant manager who made the discovery announced to all store employees that all items on these charge slips were to be paid by closing time. When Claimant arrived for work at noon, the assistant manager informed her that if these charge slips were hers, she was to pay for them by closing time.
Claimant worked the rest of the day and knew throughout that she did not have sufficient funds to pay the charges, but she made no attempt to make arrangements to pay for the charged items in the future. Prior to leaving at closing time, Claimant did pay $100.00 on the charge slips. On her way out, she also mentioned to the assistant manager that she did not have the money to fully pay for the charge slips but would be in the next day to do so. The assistant manager, who was busy, did not hear Claimant.
Claimant, however, did not go to the store the next day — she was not scheduled to work and a blizzard kept her at home. Claimant did not call the store and attempt to make arrangements for paying the charges and she did not have her husband, who had gone into town, pay the charges for her. Neither did Claimant go to the store the following two days nor did she call the manager and make arrangements for paying the charges and she offered no good excuse for failing to do so. On February 21, 1984, Claimant’s next regularly scheduled work day, Claimant went to work at 8:00 a.m. Between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., Claimant failed to contact anyone in management about paying the charges or making arrangements for the same, even though she had money to pay the remaining charges.2 At 10:00 a.m., Bomgaars’ manager arrived at the store after attending a meeting. The manager called Claimant into his office and discharged her from Bomgaars’ employ for failing to follow proper store procedure in charging mer*204chandise in the first instance and for failing to pay for the merchandise as directed on February 17, 1984.3 After being discharged, Claimant left the store for a short time and then returned and paid the remainder owed on the charge slips.
Under SDCL 61-6-14, an unemployed person is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits if they were discharged for work-connected misconduct. Matter of White, 339 N.W.2d 306, 307 (S.D.1983). At the time of Claimant’s discharge on February 21, 1984, this Court had defined misconduct as follows:
[Misconduct [within the meaning of the unemployment compensation statutes] is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute. (Emphasis supplied mine.)
Matter of Yaroch, 333 N.W.2d 448, 449 (S.D.1983) (citation omitted; brackets in original). In 1984, the South Dakota Legislature essentially codified this definition of misconduct. See SDCL 61-6-14.1.
In appeals such as the case at bar, “our review is of the decision of the administrative agency and our standard is the clearly erroneous standard.” Kienast v. Sioux Valley Co-op, 371 N.W.2d 337, 339 (S.D.1985). We review the administrative agency decision essentially in the same manner as did the circuit court, Matter of South Dakota Water Management Bd., 351 N.W.2d 119, 122 (S.D.1984), and we will reverse that agency decision if, inter alia, it prejudices substantial rights because it violates statutory provisions or is affected by an error of law. See SDCL 1-26-36.
This Court, in Yaroch, 333 N.W.2d 448, held an employee’s failure to comply with his employer’s order to speed up the work constituted disqualifying misconduct. In Matter of Lorraine Johnson, 338 N.W.2d 453 (S.D.1983), we held an employee’s isolated refusal to undertake a work task assigned to her that day, constituted misconduct which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits. In Kienast, 371 N.W.2d 337, we held that an employee’s failure to train a fellow employee, after being instructed to do so, constituted work-connected misconduct.
In the present case, Bomgaars discovered five employee charge slips, totaling over $100.00, that were not properly completed and not in their proper place. Claimant, like all other employees, was informed that these slips had to be paid by the end of the day. Claimant, however, did not arrange to pay the charge slips and did not pay in full, despite having the entire day to make such arrangements and/or procure the necessary funds. Nor did Claimant contact or make arrangements with Bomgaars during the next three days and she offered no good excuse for failing to do so. Claimant had ample opportunity to pay for the charge slips or make arrangements for their payment. This she failed to do. The charge slips in question were not properly completed, not properly acknowledged, and not in their proper place and Claimant was directed to pay for the same by closing time. Claimant thereafter failed to comply with her employer’s directive. It is obvious Claimant failed to abide by Bomgaars’ charging policy. Claimant knew the charging policy. The transcript from the appeals referee hearing substantiates this and the appeals referee found it as a fact. The circuit court adopted the findings of the *205appeals referee, as did the Secretary of Labor. It is obvious that Claimant knew she had the right to charge and had to use charge slips. However, Claimant failed to abide by the store policy which clearly affixed the responsibility of paying for the merchandise unto herself. Certainly, not dating the charge slips and not indicating her name thereon was wrong. Some of the charge slips had sales tags stuck to them as the only indication of the item that had been charged. None of the charge slips had been approved by management personnel. When an assistant manager discovered these unbusinesslike charge slips, tucked away out of sight, he was noticeably upset which prompted the general announcement that the charge slips were to be paid by 8:00 p.m. that evening. Claimant, however, failed to comply with her employer’s directive. All of this comprised an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests and the employee’s duties and obligations to her employer. The appeals referee made such findings and conclusions and after a review of the record, I am not convinced that such findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Pared to the bone, this is a factual appeal. Under these facts, Claimant is not entitled to unemployment compensation insurance benefits as she was discharged for work-connected misconduct. White, 339 N.W.2d at 307. I would therefore affirm the circuit court judgment which affirmed the Secretary of Labor.
I am hereby authorized to state that Justice WUEST joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.
. Claimant was a cashier. She had control over the cash register.
. Claimant was not acting in accordance with the “duties and obligations to [her] employer", contrary to SDCL 61-6-14.1(2).
. See Appeals Referee’s Findings of Fact, Settled Record at page 15.