This opinion will be unpublished and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

     Janis Jean Yaggy,


ACE Independent Living Consultants, Inc.,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Filed June 25, 1996
Schumacher, Judge

Department of Economic Security

File No. 7681UC95

Janis J. Yaggy, Route 1, Box 3355, Palisade, MN 56469-9765 (Relator Pro Se)

ACE Independent Living Consultants, Inc., HCR 3, Box 392, McGregor, MN
55760 (Respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and
Schumacher, Judge.
                        Unpublished Opinion

SCHUMACHER, Judge (Department of Economic Security)

In this certiorari appeal, relator Janis Jean Yaggy argues the
Commissioner's representative erred by concluding Yaggy was discharged from
respondent ACE Independent Living Consultants, Inc. (ACE) for misconduct.
We affirm.

Yaggy worked for ACE as a personal care attendant. ACE's personnel policies
manual (the manual) requires employees to provide at least two hours'
notice of inability to work. Despite being aware of this policy, Yaggy
failed to report to work July 17-20, 1995, and did not contact ACE
regarding such absences. On July 20, ACE stressed the importance of the
call-in policy and warned Yaggy about missing work or being tardy without

notifying ACE. On Monday, July 24, when Yaggy did not report for work or
follow the call-in policy, ACE terminated her.

Whether an employee has committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact
and law. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523
(Minn. 1989). The findings of the Commissioner's representative are
reviewed in a light most favorable to the decision and will not be
overturned if evidence in the record reasonably tends to sustain those
findings. Id. The ultimate determination regarding employee
misconduct, however, is a question of law subject to an appellate court's
independent review. Id.
1. The findings of the Commissioner's representative indicate (1) Yaggy
was aware of ACE's call-in policy but failed to comply with such policy
when she missed work July 17-20, (2) ACE warned Yaggy about the call-in
policy, (3) Yaggy again failed to follow the call-in policy on July 24, and
(4) ACE discharged Yaggy based in part on her ``knowing violation of
[ACE's] call-in policy after she had been warned.'' There is support in the
record for these findings based on the testimony and exhibits presented by

2. An individual discharged from employment for misconduct that interferes
with and adversely affects employment is disqualified from receiving
reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b)
(Supp. 1995). Misconduct is limited to
        ``conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard
        of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate
        violations or disregard of standards of behavior
        which the employer has the right to expect of his
        employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such
        degree or recurrence as to manifest equal
        culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to
        show an intentional and substantial disregard of the
        employer's interests or of the employee's duties and
        obligations to his employer.''

Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d
644, 646 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249,
259, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) ).

An employer has the right to expect employees to arrive on time for work.
Evenson v. Omnetic's, 344 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Minn. App. 1984). Failure
to report to work or notify the employer can qualify as misconduct.
Moeller v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 281 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.
1979). Even a single absence from work can constitute misconduct. Del
Dee Foods v. Miller, 390 N.W.2d 415, 417 (Minn. App. 1986). An employer
has the right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to
absenteeism, and the violation of such rules can constitute misconduct.
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co., 374 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn. App.
1985). An employee's repeated failure to comply with an employer's notice
requirement qualifies as misconduct. Kemp v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.,
385 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn. App. 1986); Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing,
343 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn. App. 1984); Edwards v. Yellow Freight
Sys., 342 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. App. 1984).

Here, Yaggy's repeated failure to follow the call-in policy evidences a
deliberate disregard of ACE's interests and standards. Accordingly, we
conclude Yaggy was discharged for misconduct. Further, Yaggy does not
allege that her termination was voluntary and due to ``good cause
attributable to the employer.'' See Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd.
1(a). Thus, her arguments regarding (1) ACE's unprofessional management,
(2) salary disagreements, and (3) ACE's failure to discipline her for other
violations of the manual are irrelevant to the issue of misconduct.
Additionally, we find no merit in Yaggy's argument that ACE's call-in

policy is vague.