This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-1835

 

 

Brian L. Santema,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Camp Snoopy,

Respondent,

 

Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed July 26, 2005

Affirmed

Robert H. Schumacher, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 938404

 

 

Brian L. Santema, 2645 Zenith Avenue North, Robbinsdale, MN 55422 (pro se relator)

 

Camp Snoopy, 5000 Center Court, Bloomington, MN 55425 (respondent)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E-200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Commissioner)

 

 

            Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Schumacher, Judge; and Wright, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge

            Relator Brian L. Santema challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct.  We affirm.

FACTS

Santema was employed by respondent Camp Snoopy from April 26, 2000 through April 28, 2004 as a full-time bakery production team leader.  He was aware that Camp Snoopy has general employment policies against harassing other employees or failing to comply with departmental operating procedures and that Camp Snoopy uses a progressive discipline system. 

Throughout his tenure, Santema had an ongoing conflict with another employee who was under his supervision.  As a result of confrontations with this subordinate, Santema received written reprimands in July 2003, August 2003, November 2003, December 2003, and March 2004, warning him to cease his inappropriate treatment of the other employee and informing him that continued violations of the policy could lead to further discipline including termination.  Camp Snoopy suspended Santema after an April 2004 incident, investigated the situation, and discharged him on April 28 for his repeated confrontations and unprofessional conduct in dealing with his subordinate.  The senior unemployment review judge determined Santema was discharged for employment misconduct and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 

D E C I S I O N

This court's standard of review in unemployment benefit cases is very narrow and is limited to determining whether the evidence reasonably sustains the decision of the senior unemployment review judge.  Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382, 383-84 (Minn. 1992); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (2004) (stating statutory title of individual conducting review is "senior unemployment review judge").  When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, this court defers to the senior unemployment review judge's ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations; we do not weigh the evidence on review.  Whitehead v. Moonlight Nursing Care, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 350, 352 (Minn. App. 1995).

A person discharged from employment because of employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp. 2003).[1]  Employment misconduct is "any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1) that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employment."  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2003).

Whether a discharged employee has engaged in employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.  Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).  Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.   Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984).  This court defers to the senior unemployment review judge's factual findings if the record reasonably sustains them.  Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996).  But whether an act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which we review de novo.  Id.

The record here demonstrates that pursuant to the Camp Snoopy employee handbook, Santema was required to comply with departmental operating procedures to refrain from fighting with, threatening, or intimidating any individual, and from harassing any Camp Snoopy employee.  It is undisputed that Santema received five written warnings about his failure to comply with the handbook in the nine months prior to his discharge and the warnings specified that as a supervisor Santema was in a leadership role and was required to treat his subordinates with respect.  The conduct giving rise to the warnings included reducing a subordinate to tears by mistreatment and threats, getting into a "shouting match" with a subordinate over a simple procedure, and becoming so angry with another employee that he slammed a metal pan down in the kitchen with such force that he sheared a hole in it.   The repeated disregard of an employer's warnings to refrain from certain activity constitutes misconduct.  Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Minn. 1977).

Santema argues that he was not entirely to blame for the confrontations leading to the warnings and discharge because the employee in question was especially contentious.  But the record supports the finding of the senior unemployment review judge that Santema's behavior demonstrated a serious violation of the standards of behavior Camp Snoopy had the right to reasonably expect of him.  Based on these facts, we conclude that Santema intentionally disregarded the standards of behavior that Camp Snoopy had a right to expect of its employee.

The senior unemployment review judge did not err in concluding that Santema was terminated for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.