STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Gordon E. Ess,
Olsten Staffing Services,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed December 28, 1999
Department of Economic Security
File No. 7385UC98
Olsten Staffing Services, Staffing Services America Inc., c/o The Frick Company, Post Office Box 283, St. Louis, MO 63166-0283 (respondent)
Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security)
Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
Relator Gordon E. Ess challenges a disqualification determination, arguing that he had good cause to refuse a job offer because it was not suitable and required excessive transportation. We affirm.
A claimant who fails to accept or avoids an offer of suitable employment without good cause is disqualified from benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 8(a)(2), (3) (Supp. 1999). Suitable employment is employment in the claimant's labor market area that is reasonably related to the claimant's qualifications. Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23(a) (Supp. 1999). A claimant has good cause for refusal of suitable work only when there is some necessitous and compelling reason for refusal. Minn. R. 3305.0800, subp. 18.
Ess argues that the job offer was unsuitable because he had no experience working in a bank. Working as a customer representative for a bank at $9.75 an hour appears to be suitable employment for Ess, however, as it is reasonably related to his qualifications. As the commissioner's representative noted, much of Ess's previous work experience involved customer service and contact. A degree in business administration is not inconsistent with work at a bank. Nothing in the record suggests Ess was unqualified for the position offered on June 23, 1998.
Ess argues that the job offer was unsuitable because he had told Olsten that he did not wish to travel more than 10 miles to an assignment. He suggests that 18 miles from his residence to downtown St. Paul renders the job unsuitable. We conclude that it is not unreasonable under the facts of this case to expect that Ess should be required to travel to the job in downtown St. Paul to reach employment. Transportation is the problem of an employee and failure to reach a job is not good cause to decline an employment offer. See Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc., 307 Minn. 356, 358, 240 N.W.2d 314, 316 (1976).