is proper]. Id. at 611, 249 S.E.2d at 182. The parties agree that our concern here involves only the second prong of the Branch definition of misconduct. A deliberate violation of a company rule is not involved. In this context, we agree with claimant that under Branch, when an employee is discharged for poor performance, he or she is entitled to unemployment compensation unless the employer shows that the conduct resulting in the employee’s discharge constituted acts or omissions of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest willful disregard for the employer’s interests. Id. Moreover, the record must establish that an employee’s poor performance did not result merely from inexperience or an inability to perform the task assigned. See Borbas, 17 Va.App. at 723, 440 S.E.2d at 632 (<HOLDING>). We further agree with claimant that in
holding that an employee could not be bound to an arbitration agreement that had been mailed to him by his employer acceptance of which was indicated by employees continued tenure with the company where there was no evidence in the record that the employee had received read or understood the document holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate holding that if an employee reasonably refuses to perform a required act the employee is still eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits holding that the record should contain evidence that the employee had demonstrated an ability to perform adequately