This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Casey J. Katchmark,
Schaefer Hardwood Floors,
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 12506 03
Casey J. Katchmark, 673 West Wheelock Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55117 (pro se relator)
Schaefer Hardwood Floors, 3008 Bryant Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55408 (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
Relator Casey Katchmark was employed by respondent Schaefer Hardwood Floors as a floor refinisher from September 17, 2001, through June 13, 2003. In early June 2003, while Katchmark was refinishing a client’s kitchen floor, the client inquired as to Katchmark’s interest in finishing the rest of the home’s floors as a side job. The client also asked whether Katchmark knew anyone who would perform the work for less than Schaefer charged. Although Katchmark advised that he would not work for the client outside his employment with Schaefer, he referred the client to a friend and former employer. When the client informed Schaefer’s owner that Katchmark had referred the client to Katchmark’s former employer, the owner confronted Katchmark and terminated his employment.
Katchmark applied for unemployment benefits. The Department of Employment and Economic Development determined that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because his behavior “violate[ed] the basic trust between the employer and the employee,” which constitutes employment misconduct. On appeal from the decision of the unemployment law judge, the commissioner’s representative determined that Katchmark committed employment misconduct by engaging in “intentional, negligent or indifferent conduct evincing a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has the right to reasonably expect of an employee . . . demonstrating a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” This certiorari appeal followed.
We review the findings of the commissioner’s representative rather than those of the unemployment law judge. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). In doing so, we view the findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them when they are reasonably sustained by the evidence. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).
 The definition of employment misconduct was amended by the legislature, effective August 1, 2003. 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, §§ 13, 20(g); see Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (2002). We apply the definition in effect at the time the discharge occurred. Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd., 679 N.W.2d 182, 185-86 (Minn. App. 2004). Because the discharge at issue here occurred prior to August 1, 2003, we apply the 2002 definition of employment misconduct in our analysis.