This opinion will be unpublished and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


Kenneth S. Koski,


USX Corporation,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Filed August 13, 1996
Lansing, Judge

Department of Economic Security
File No. 10016UC95

Thomas F. Andrew, Brown, Andrew, Signorelli & Zallar, P.A., 
300 Alworth Building, Duluth, MN  55802 (for Relator)

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

Gary R. Kelly, U.S. Steel, Law Department, 600 Grant Street, 
Pittsburgh, PA  15219-2749 (for USX Corporation)

	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

	Kenneth Koski appeals from a decision of the 
Commissioner's representative disqualifying him from the receipt 
of certain reemployment insurance benefits.  Because the record 
reasonably supports the determination that  Koski was discharged 
for misconduct, we affirm.


	At the time of his discharge from USX Corporation in 
1995, Kenneth Koski worked as a shift manager, a position that he 
had held for approximately ten years.  Koski's duties in this 
position included the enforcement of the company's policies 
against smoking and sexual harassment in the workplace.
	USX policy prohibits smoking in elevators.  To advise 
workers of this policy, the company posted stickers, measuring 
slightly less than three-by-eleven inches, which read:


The company's policy against sexual harassment prohibits graffiti, 
as well as other offensive conduct.
	In order to monitor violations of the company's policies 
against smoking in elevators and the writing of offensive graffiti 
on elevator walls, USX installed a video camera in a company 
elevator in September 1995.  The video camera recorded three 
instances on two different days when Koski entered the elevator 
and removed three "no smoking" stickers from one of the walls.  
Koski admits to having removed the three stickers.  He further 
admits that at least two of the stickers did not have any graffiti on 
them.  He claims, however, that one of the three stickers had what 
he believed to be an offensive comment written on it.  He claims to 
have removed the other two stickers because he "thought they were 
just an invitation to write graffiti on them and they were poorly 
placed."  USX asserts that there was no graffiti on any of the 
stickers that Koski removed.
	USX discharged Koski on September 30, 1995, on the 
stated ground that he had destroyed company property.  Koski 
subsequently filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits.  A 
reemployment insurance judge determined that Koski qualified for 
benefits.  A representative of the Commissioner of the Department 
of Economic Security later reversed that decision, finding that 
Koski's excuse lacked credibility and concluding that USX had 
discharged Koski "for reasons amounting to misconduct."

	D E C I S I O N

	Review of the decision of the Commissioner's 
representative presents a mixed question of fact and law.  Colburn 
v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 
1984).  We must defer to the findings of the Commissioner's 
representative, even when those findings differ from those of the 
reemployment insurance judge.  Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 
N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).  The issue of whether the findings 
support a determination of "misconduct," for the purpose of 
disqualifying a discharged employee from reemployment insurance 
benefits, is a question of law that we may consider independently.  
Ress v. Abbott N.W. Hosp., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).
	Koski maintains that he removed the three "no smoking" 
stickers in the belief that he was acting in accordance with the 
company's policy against sexual harassment.  He challenges the 
Commissioner's representative's finding that this explanation 
lacked credibility, and he argues that his behavior demonstrated a 
good-faith error in judgment and should therefore fall outside the 
applicable definition of "misconduct."  See Tilseth v. Midwest 
Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) 
(defining "misconduct").
	We conclude that the record contains evidence reasonably 
tending to support the Commissioner's representative's findings.  
The stickers contained prominent warnings that their removal 
constituted a violation of the company's rules and regulations.  
Koski admittedly removed at least two stickers that had no graffiti 
written on them because he "thought they were just an invitation to 
write graffiti on them," yet he did not remove any stickers from the 
other walls of the elevator.  The Commissioner's representative 
found that Koski's explanation for removing the stickers was 
"simply not believable."  We are required to defer to the 
Commissioner's findings on credibility.  Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 
526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).  It is not within our province to 
reweigh credibility on appeal.  Blau v. Masters Restaurant 
Assocs., 345 N.W.2d 791, 793 (Minn. App. 1984) (citing Nyberg 
v. R.N. Cardozo & Bro., 243 Minn. 361, 364, 67 N.W.2d 821, 823 
	We further conclude that the Commissioner's representative 
properly determined that Koski's behavior constituted 
"misconduct" under Minn. Stat.  268.09, subd. 1(b) (Supp. 1995). 
 As a shift manager at USX, Koski was responsible for enforcing 
the company's rules and regulations.  Because of his position, his 
conduct would have been particularly likely to cause other workers 
to disregard the company's policies, and this potential for 
dissension could have adversely affected the company.  See Ress, 
448 N.W.2d at 524 (considering dissension as factor relevant to 
determination of misconduct).  Under these circumstances we hold 
that Koski was discharged for misconduct and is disqualified from 
receiving reemployment insurance benefits under section 268.09, 
subdivision 1.