This opinion will be unpublished and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
Daryl J. Chute,
Kane Transport, Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 1295704
Daryl J. Chute,
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, First National Bank Building, Suite E200, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Daryl J. Chute challenges the determination of the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that relator quit his employment with respondent Kane Transport, Inc. Because the record supports the SURJ’s findings and determination that relator voluntarily quit his employment without good reason caused by the employer, we affirm.
Relator opened an account for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. His request was initially denied, but, after a de novo evidentiary hearing, the unemployment law judge determined that relator was discharged relator for reasons other than misconduct and was not disqualified from receiving benefits. Respondent appealed The SURJ denied relator’s request for benefits after determining that he quit voluntarily. Relator now seeks review.
On appeal, this
court reviews the decision by the SURJ. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50,
We first consider
the SURJ’s factual findings. Whether the
applicant quit or was discharged is a question of fact. Goodwin
v. BPS Guard Servs., Inc., 524 N.W.2d 28, 29 (
Here, the record supports the SURJ’s finding that relator voluntarily terminated his employment. An employee quits when the decision to terminate employment is the employee’s. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2004). When asked by the unemployment law judge to characterize his termination, relator specifically stated, “I quit.” He offered further explanation by saying that he believed the employer acted unreasonably when it asked him to accept a change in his work schedule. The SURJ’s finding that, “[o]n June 17, 2004, [relator] quit from the employment because he was dissatisfied with the hours he was selected to work” is supported by relator’s own statements in the record.
An applicant who
voluntarily quits his employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits unless the applicant demonstrates that an exception applies, such as
good reason caused by the employer.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2004). Whether an applicant quits for a good cause
is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Peppi
v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (
A good reason
caused by the employer is a reason that: (1) is directly related to the
employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) is adverse to the
worker; and (3) would compel an average worker to quit and become unemployed
rather than remaining in the employment.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2004). The policy underlying the statute is to
benefit “those who become unemployed through no fault of their own.” Edward
v. Sentinel Mgmt. Co., 611 N.W.2d 366, 368 (
An applicant who
quits merely because the hours scheduled by the employer are inconvenient lacks
good cause. Markert v. Nat’l Car Rental, 349 N.W.2d 859, 861 (