This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Mark V. Frank,
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Agency File No. 5178 04
Mark V. Frank,
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent DEED)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Kalitowski, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the commissioner’s representative that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had quit without good reason attributable to his employer. Because the evidence reasonably tends to sustain the findings, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
An applicant who
quits employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
them. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (
Relator Mark Frank
worked as an extruder-setup operator at respondent Entegris, Inc.’s
The uncontroverted testimony established that the Gaylord position remained relator’s on January 13. His transfer to Chaska was approved; however, a replacement worker for his Gaylord position was required. A replacement worker requiring training was hired on January 12. Entegris management thought relator’s transfer to Chaska was likely within a month after the date relator quit. In short, the evidence reasonably supports the finding that it was relator’s decision to quit.
Relator argues that the “internal job application form,” showing that he had “gone through the application process properly with the help of [the human resources manager] and the approval of my supervisor,” should have been admitted into evidence. He states that the form “confirms what I have presented from the start of this process that I was indeed beyond the application stage of my request for a transfer to [Quality Assurance] Department in Chaska.” As the commissioner’s representative determined, there was no dispute that relator applied for and was approved for the Chaska position. Therefore, the commissioner’s representative did not err in determining that the form itself was of no consequence to the litigation.
(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; and
(2) that is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (Supp. 2003). Whether an employee has good cause
to quit attributable to the employer is a question of law, which we review de
novo. Peppi v.
Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (
The commissioner’s representative found that Entegris did not treat relator “wrongly or unreasonably” and did not try to block or frustrate his transfer. The record supports these findings; it reflects Entegris’s efforts to accommodate relator. Moreover, there is no showing that relator communicated to management that those efforts were insufficient. Had relator not quit, the whole process of replacing and then transferring him would have taken two months or less, including the holiday season. The termination date was chosen by relator, not Entegris, whose testimony indicates that it valued relator’s work and intended for him to retain his position until the steps for his requested transfer had occurred. These are not circumstances that would justify a reasonable person quitting employment.
The evidence supports the commissioner’s representative’s finding that relator left his employment while employment was still available to him, which is a quit rather than a discharge under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(b) (Supp. 2003), and relator did not have good reason to quit.
 The revisor’s office inadvertently substituted the term “ineligible for” for the term “disqualified from” in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (Supp. 2003). See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (2002) (using term “disqualified from”); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 11 (making other changes to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1, but retaining term “disqualified from”); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 20(j), (k) (directing revisor to change the term “disqualified from” to “ineligible for” only in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 12, and then to renumber to Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13b).