This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C5-02-133

 

 

Christopher Robert Saxe,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Ginelliís Pizza,

Respondent,

 

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed July 16, 2002

Affirmed

Halbrooks, Judge

 

 

Department of Economic Security

File No. 924901

 

Christopher Robert Saxe, 3940 Restwood Road, #201, Lexington, MN 55014 (pro se relator)

 

Ginelliís Pizza, 200 South 6th Street, #270, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (respondent)

 

Philip B. Byrne, 390 North Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent commissioner)

 

††††††††††† Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Hanson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

††††††††††† Pro se relator challenges the commissionerís representativeís decision that relator was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because he was discharged for misconduct.† Because the record supports the decision of the commissionerís representative, we affirm.††

FACTS

††††††††††† Relator Christopher Saxe worked as a helper and delivery person for respondent Ginelliís Pizza from April 3, 2000, through June 22, 2001.† Relator was scheduled to work at 8:00 a.m. on June 22, 2001, but had a flat tire on his way to work.† Relator did not call respondent until approximately 10:15 a.m., when he was told not to come in because the restaurant was too busy.† Relator claims he never received this message.† When relator arrived at work at 11:45 a.m., the manager told him to leave because the lunch rush had started.† Relator responded by using profanity and forcibly hitting the door of the restaurant as he left.† Relator was terminated for his angry outburst on June 22, 2001, which was observed by restaurant customers, in addition to earlier incidents of rude and hostile behavior.†

The Department of Economic Security approved relatorís request for unemployment benefits.† Respondent appealed, and the unemployment law judge reversed, finding that relator did not take the first opportunity to notify respondent that he would be tardy on June 22 and that relator failed to obey the managerís instruction to leave the restaurant.† The commissionerís representative upheld the unemployment law judge, noting that relatorís profanity and hitting the door violated the standards of conduct an employer has a right to expect of an employee.† This appeal follows.†

D E C I S I O N

We review decisions of the commissionerís representative with particular deference. †Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).† We consider the commissionerís representativeís factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them if the record reasonably tends to sustain them.† Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996).† Whether relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits due to misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984).† Whether relatorís conduct constitutes misconduct is a question of law upon which we exercise our independent judgment.† Ress v. Abbott N.W. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).†

Employment misconduct includes

any intentional conduct, on the job or off the job, that disregards the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect of the employee or disregards the employeeís duties and obligations to the employer.†

 

Minn. Stat. ß 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1) (2000).† In Houston v. Intíl Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Minn. 2002), the supreme court noted that

for purposes of disqualification from unemployment compensation on grounds of employment misconduct under the statute, there must be a sufficient showing in the record that the employee not only engaged in intentional conduct, but also intended to, or engaged in conduct that evinced an intent to, ignore or pay no attention to his or her duties and obligations or the standards of behavior the employer has a right to expect.†

 

††††††††††† Relator asserts that the record does not support the conclusion that he committed misconduct.† The commissioner found that relator arrived late to work without providing the restaurant with proper notice.† The commissioner also found that relator used profanity and hit the restaurant door, thereby disturbing restaurant patrons.† Although relator disputes that he received previous warnings from his supervisor concerning his anger problem and claims that his actions did not disturb restaurant patrons, the testimony of the restaurant manager provides support for these findings.††††

††††††††††† Relatorís behavior constitutes employment misconduct as a matter of law.† An employer may expect an employee to follow reasonable orders and instructions, and failure to do so is misconduct.† Soussi v. Blue & White Serv. Corp., 498 N.W.2d 316, 318 (Minn. App. 1993).† Relator received multiple warnings about controlling his anger while he was at work.† His behavior was contrary to the type of behavior an employer may expect from an employee.††††

††††††††††† Affirmed.†