This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.  480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C3-96-332

Bryce Thompson,
Relator,

vs.

Potlatch Corp.,
Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,
Respondent.

Filed August 13, 1996
Affirmed. 
Lansing, Judge

Department of Economic Security
File No. 9025UC95

Bryce Thompson, 2203 E. Bass Lake Rd., Grand Rapids, MN  
55744 (Pro Se)

Potlatch Corp., 502 County Road 63, Grand Rapids, MN  55744 
(Respondent)

Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN  55101 (for 
Respondent Commissioner of Economic Security)

	Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, 
Kalitowski, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

LANSING, Judge
	The Commissioner's representative determined that the 
employee's disruptive behavior constituted misconduct 
disqualifying him from receiving reemployment insurance 
benefits.  The record demonstrates that the employer met its 
burden of proving misconduct, and we affirm. 

	FACTS

	Potlatch Corporation employed Bryce Thompson as a 
forklift operator from 1980 until 1995.  Beginning in 1991 
Thompson exhibited disruptive behavior at work, for which he was 
warned and eventually fired.
	The disruptive incidents included (1) a November 1991 
confrontation with another employee in which Thompson yelled at 
him and called him a liar (resulting in a warning); (2) a January 
1994 argument with his supervisor in which Thompson called him 
a "dumb ass" (resulting in a three-day suspension); (3) an August 
1995 incident of Thompson following another employee, pointing 
at him, and making harassing gestures; and (4) a September 1995 
exchange with other employees in which Thompson expressed 
dissatisfaction with a supervisor in an angry and threatening 
manner, specifically threatening one of the employees by saying "I 
will remember you for this."
	Following the last incident, Potlatch issued Thompson a 
disciplinary notice directing him to complete a psychologi-
cal/psychiatric evaluation, complete any treatment 
recommendations, follow all rules of conduct, and refrain from 
harassing, threatening, or intimidating any other employees.  The 
notice indicated that Thompson would be immediately discharged 
if he failed to comply with these requirements during the next two 
years.
	A few days later, Thompson confronted an employee, 
accused him of lying, and stated that he was going to put the 
employee's name on a list and turn it over to the FBI.  The 
employee reported that he felt intimidated and concerned.  
Thompson was discharged for his confrontive and intimidating 
behavior, which violated the conditions of the disciplinary notice.

	D E C I S I O N

	An employee who is discharged for misconduct is 
disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits.  
Minn. Stat.  268.09, subd. 1(b) (1994).  An employer has the 
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
employee committed disqualifying misconduct.   Ress v. Abbott 
Northwestern Hosp., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).   
	We review the Commissioner's representative's factual 
findings in the light most favorable to the decision, and we will not 
disturb the findings if there is evidence in the record that 
reasonably tends to sustain them.  Id.  The ultimate determination 
on whether an employee committed misconduct is, however, a 
question of law on which we exercise independent judgment.  Id.
	Disruptive conduct in the work place or threats to 
coworkers may constitute misconduct.  See Booher v. Transport 
Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Minn. 1977) 
(concluding that employee committed misconduct by failing to 
follow directions of supervisor to cease actions causing dissension 
and disruption among co-workers); Feia v. St. Cloud State 
College, 309 Minn. 564, 565, 244 N.W.2d 635, 636 (1976) 
(concluding that college custodian committed misconduct, after 
being warned, by continuing to express her disapproval of nude 
models, drawings, and paintings, disrupting employer's art 
program).  The evidence relied on by the Commissioner's 
representative supports the conclusion that Thompson's repeated 
disruptive, confrontational, and intimidating behavior constituted 
misconduct.
	Thompson urges that we reject the Commissioner's 
determination because (1) he was the person harassed, and 
Potlatch's employee relations supervisor committed perjury at the 
hearing; (2) the findings are based on unacceptable hearsay; (3) he 
was discharged not for misconduct but for a failure to take drugs 
prescribed by a psychiatrist recommended by Potlatch; (4) the 
reemployment insurance judge and the Commissioner's 
representative failed to consider his evidence of harassment; and 
(5) he was misled into believing Potlatch would not challenge his 
claim and consequently was unprepared at the hearing.
	We have reviewed these contentions and do not find a basis 
for reversing the Commissioner's determination because (1) the 
Commissioner's representative and not this court has the power to 
make credibility determinations, Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 
N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995); (2) hearsay is admissible in 
reemployment insurance hearings, Pichler v. Alter Co., 307 Minn. 
522, 523, 240 N.W.2d 328, 329 (Minn. 1976); Seemann v. Little 
Crow Trucking, 412 N.W.2d 422, 426 (Minn. App. 1987); Vang v. 
A-1 Maintenance Serv., 376 N.W.2d 479, 482 (Minn. App. 1985); 
(3) the documents offered to demonstrate discharge for reasons 
other than misconduct are not part of the record, see Plowman v. 
Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977); (4) 
the record does not support allegations that the reemployment 
insurance judge denied Thompson an opportunity to present 
evidence, and the Commissioner's representative had no authority 
to consider new evidence, see Minn. Stat.  268.105, subd. 3 
(Supp. 1995); and (5)  there is no evidence in the record to support 
Thompson's claim that he was coerced into believing that Potlatch 
would not challenge his claim, nor did Thompson raise this claim 
below, see  Jaakola v. Duluth/Superior Area Educ. Television 
Corp., 374 N.W.2d 215, 217 (Minn. App. 1985).

	Affirmed.