Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Cathleen R. Strong,
Independent Technology Systems, Inc., et al.,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed May 19, 1998
Department of Economic Security
File No. 4284 UC 97
Cathleen R. Strong, 8537 14th Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55425 (pro se relator)
Joseph B. Nierenberg, Messerli & Kramer P.A., 1800 Fifth Street Towers, 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent employer)
Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Economic Security)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appealing by certiorari from a denial of reemployment compensation benefits, relator Cathleen Strong challenges the commissioner's representative's finding that she voluntarily quit her job without good cause attributable to her employer. We affirm.
A claims adjudicator and a reemployment insurance judge denied relator's subsequent claim for reemployment insurance benefits. The commissioner's representative affirmed the denial, finding that the modification in relator's position did not constitute good cause to quit.
Relator contends she quit because she was discriminated against due to her age, gender, medical problems, and for complaining about working conditions. But the commissioner's representative made a factual determination that relator quit because of a change in the conditions of her job. See Embaby v. Department of Jobs & Training, 397 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Minn. App. 1986) (finding on reason for employee's separation is factual determination). On appeal, our scope of review is limited to determining if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings of the commissioner's representative. White v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983).
While an employee may quit for good cause when an employer substantially changes the conditions of employment, there is no good cause to quit when there is no appreciable difference between the employee's old and new positions. Bestler v. Travel Co., 398 N.W.2d 611, 613-14 (Minn. App. 1986) (recognizing that claimants have right to reject positions requiring substantially less skill than they possess but no similar right where claimant is transferred to an equivalent position that requires the same skills) (citation omitted); Zepp, 272 N.W.2d at 263 (finding substantial change where employee's work load more than doubled). Moreover, irreconcilable differences, dissatisfaction or frustration with working conditions do not constitute good cause to quit. Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn. App. 1986).
The commissioner's representative found that relator's previous position involved "inspector-type duties as well as training and repair work." The record shows that in her former position as a quality technician, relator calibrated equipment; conducted audits; did repairs and reworks; maintained statistical control logs; trained new employees; and performed inspection work 10 to 15% of the time. In comparison, relator's new position would have involved sharing the quality technician's responsibilities with other inspectors. Consequently, relator would have spent more of her time doing inspection work.
Noting that there was no decrease in relator's compensation, the commissioner's representative concluded that relator's new position as an on-line inspector "was a suitable position and was entirely compatible with the claimant's skills and expertise." The commissioner's representative also found that the proposed changes in relator's job "were initiated in connection with production changes." Because these findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and are not effectively challenged on appeal, the commissioner's representative properly determined that relator is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits.
 Relator states that she intends to pursue her discrimination complaints in another forum.