This opinion will be unpublished and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
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed November 22, 2005
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 569 05
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Halbrooks, Judge, and Wright, Judge.
reviews findings by the SURJ under a clearly erroneous standard and will affirm
if those findings are reasonably supported by the evidence. Schmidgall
v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (
employee who is discharged for misconduct is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp. 2003).
Misconduct is “intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct . . . (1)
that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has
the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that demonstrates a
substantial lack of concern for the employment.”
first argues that he was not fired and that he did not quit. Whether a person quits or is fired is a
question of fact. Midland Elec., Inc. v.
did not find that relator quit; thus, relator is in agreement with the SURJ on
this point and we need not discuss it further.
The SURJ found that when relator did not return to work after his
underlying theory appears to be that the owner just failed to call him for
further work. A discharge occurs when
either the words or actions by an employer would lead the employee to believe
that he is no longer working for that employer.
Next, relator argues that he did call his supervisor to report that he had an appointment on April 1 and would be unable to report to work that day. The SURJ made this finding, but also found that company policy required that employees call the owner to report when they were unable to work their scheduled shift. Although relator was aware of this policy, he did not follow it when he called his supervisor rather than the owner.
Relator also makes various claims about union rules, apparently to show that he could not have been fired. As the department points out, if relator was discharged in violation of union rules, that raises a separate legal issue that is not reviewable here.
Relator also challenges the SURJ’s finding that he had a history of walking off the job when he is upset with the company. He asserts that the owner was confused about dates and circumstances, that he did not have the chance to rebut the written statements by the other employees to this effect, and that the owner put the other employees up to making the statements that he disputes. Testimony by the owner and the two written employee statements support the SURJ’s finding.
Because the SURJ’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, we affirm the decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and thus disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.