may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Kathy Marie Briesemeister,
Preferred Staffing, Inc.,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed February 16, 1999
Department of Economic Security
File No. 3113UC98
Kathy Marie Briesemeister, 3033 Monterey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (relator, pro se)
James F. Baldwin, Todd J. Klemmensen, Murnane, Conlin, White & Brandt, 1800 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Preferred Staffing, Inc.)
Kent E. Todd, Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Kathy Briesemeister performed word processing tasks at $12 per hour for Preferred Staffing, Inc. (PSI) at one of its client companies located in Minnetonka. That assignment ended and PSI did not have further work immediately available for Briesemeister, but later offered her several positions. After Briesemeister received reemployment insurance benefits, PSI challenged Briesemeister's eligibility to receive unemployment benefits. By writ of certiorari, Briesemeister appeals from the commissioner's decision of ineligibility due to Briesemeister's failure to accept employment offers from PSI. We affirm.
Briesemeister argues the commissioner's finding that she rejected suitable work is without record support. Briesemeister agrees PSI offered her employment, but claims the positions were unsuitable and would "lead to an unstable employment history." Whether a suitable offer of employment has been made is a question of fact, involving a determination of credibility, to be decided by the commissioner. Willrich v. Top Temp., Inc., 379 N.W.2d 731, 732 (Minn. App. 1986); Zielinski v. Ryan Co., 379 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. App. 1985); see also Preiss v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 347 N.W.2d 74, 76 (Minn. App. 1984) (noting "suitable work" defined as work employee customarily performs or is fitted to perform).
The record demonstrates: (1) Briesemeister told PSI she was interested in administrative, secretarial, and general office work; (2) PSI initially employed Briesemesiter as a word processor in Minnetonka for $12 per hour; (3) after that position ended, PSI offered Briesemeister four different jobs; (4) the March 23 offer involved a full-time clerical or administrative job in Minnetonka paying $12 per hour; (5) the March 30 offer involved a full-time word processing position in Minnetonka paying $10 per hour; (6) another March 30 offer involved a full-time receptionist position in Minnetonka paying $10 per hour; and (7) the April 15 offer involved a full-time receptionist position in Minneapolis paying $11.05 per hour. Given these facts and our scope of review, we conclude the evidence supports the commissioner's findings that PSI's offers were definite, express, and suitable, and Briesemeister rejected these offers without good cause. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 9 (1998) (defining suitable employment); Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc., 288 Minn. 432, 438, 181 N.W.2d 701, 706 (1970) (concluding that, although claimant probably preferred other employment, he did not demonstrate good cause for rejecting suitable job offers); Mastley v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 347 N.W.2d 515, 518-19 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding proposed pay rate of $8.50 per hour, rather than $10 per hour, did not render job offer unsuitable).