This opinion will be unpublished and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
James M. Decker ,
Von Hanson Meats & More, Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Agency File No. 16306 04
Von Hanson Meats & More,
Linda Alison Holmes, Department
of Employment and Economic Development,
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Randall, Judge; and Willis, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator James M. Decker challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that relator is disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. Because evidence supports the SURJ’s findings, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Relator worked for respondent Von Hanson Meats & More, Inc. from February to August 2004, when he was discharged. A department adjudicator determined that relator was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct, and relator appealed. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1 (2004), an unemployment law judge (ULJ), after conducting an evidentiary hearing, affirmed that determination. Relator appealed again, and a SURJ, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(c) (2004), conducted de novo review and independently concluded relator was discharged for employment misconduct.
Misconduct is defined as “any
intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct . . . (1) that displays clearly a
serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to
reasonably expect of the employee . . .
.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004). This court reviews the SURJ’s factual
findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them
if there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain them. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d
801, 804 (
“This court has recognized the
employer’s right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to
absenteeism.” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 118, 120 (
Relator was discharged for
unsatisfactory attendance, specifically for not showing up and not calling in
on three dates: April 18, May 28, and August 4, 2004. While he disputes the documentary evidence
and respondent’s owner’s testimony on the first two dates, he agrees with
respondent’s account of what happened on August 4, when relator was scheduled
to work. The SURJ found that “[relator]
did not call in or arrange for someone to call in on his behalf to report he
would be absent because he was incarcerated on an outstanding arrest warrant.” Relator testified that he was picked up by the
police around midnight on August 3, held for a few hours on a
For the two previous incidents, the SURJ found that relator had not shown up to work when he was scheduled, had not called in before the start of his shift, and had been warned about his absences. The testimony of respondent’s owner, which the SURJ found more credible, supports the SURJ’s findings, and the record includes two written warnings describing the offenses and bearing relator’s signature.
Respondent’s handbook set out the expectation that employees would be at work when scheduled and would call in if they would be absent; it stated clearly that unsatisfactory attendance and failure to report an absence would violate respondent’s expectations.
The record supports the SURJ’s finding that relator was discharged for misconduct and the conclusion that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits.