Host International, Inc. terminated its employment of Sonja Teal, ostensibly because she violated its policies and rules. Teal applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but the Board of Review of the Department of Labor concluded that she was disqualified for benefits, based on its finding that she was, in fact, terminated for violating the policies and rules of her employer.1 Teal sought judicial review, but the superior court upheld the decision of the Board. We then granted her application for discretionary review. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Host failed in the administrative proceedings to prove by competent evidence that Teal was, in fact, terminated for violating its policies and rules, and for this reason, the decision of the Board disqualifying her for benefits cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below.2 An employee is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits when her employment is terminated for “failure to obey orders, rules, or instructions,” OCGA § 34-8-194 2 A, but an employer claiming that a former employee is disqualified bears the burden of proving the grounds for disqualification by a preponderance of the evidence.3 See Ga.-Pacific Corp. v. Ivey , 250 Ga. App. 181, 182-183 1 549 SE2d 471 2001; Millen v. Caldwell , 253 Ga. 112, 113 317 SE2d 818 1984. When a court reviews a decision of the Board that an employee is disqualified, the factual findings of the Board are conclusive to the extent that they are supported by competent evidence, see OCGA § 34-8-223 b, and the court must affirm the decision of the Board if it is supported by any competent evidence. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Carlson , 162 Ga. App. 94, 95 290 SE2d 200 1982 evidence must have probative value. It is settled, however, that hearsay is not competent evidence and “is without probative value to establish any fact.” Finch v. Caldwell , 155 Ga. App. 813, 815 273 SE2d 216 1980.
The record indicates that Teal was employed by Host as a server and bartender at a restaurant in the Atlanta airport. In August 2009, her employment with Host was terminated after Host accounting personnel determined that Teal failed to account for more than $50 that she collected during a bartending shift, which would amount to a violation of Host’s cash-handling policy. She had been warned before about the cash-handling policy and about earlier failures to properly account for cash collections, so we have little doubt that, if Host had proven that she, in fact, failed to account for more than $50 in August 2009, the Board properly might have concluded that she was disqualified for benefits. But the only evidence of this fact adduced at the administrative hearing was hearsay.
