STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A06-189

Ricki Y. Schultz,
Relator,

vs.

Bartley Sales Company, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed December 26, 2006

Affirmed

Wright, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 1617405

Ricki Y. Schultz, 14210 County Road 40, Carver, MN 55315 (pro se relator)

Bartley Sales Company Inc., 6509 Cambridge Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (respondent)

Linda A. Holmes, Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Department)

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

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s determination that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without a good reason caused by the employer. We affirm.

FACTS

Relator Ricki Schultz began working for respondent Bartley Sales Company, Inc. in March 1994. On Monday, October 17, 2005, Schultz requested permission to take the upcoming Friday as an unpaid day off, but her request was denied. That Thursday, at 10:44 p.m., Schultz left a voicemail message for Bartley Sales Company’s comptroller stating that she quit effective immediately. But Schultz gave no reason for doing so.

Thereafter, Schultz applied for unemployment benefits. An adjudicator from the Department of Employment and Economic Development (department) denied Schultz’s application, and Schultz appealed. After a hearing before an unemployment law judge (ULJ), the ULJ issued his findings of fact and decision in which he concluded that Schultz was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without a good reason caused by the employer. But the decision section of the ULJ’s findings of fact and decision mistakenly stated that Schultz “quit the employment because of a good reason caused by Bartley Sales Company, Inc. There is no disqualification.” The ULJ issued his amended findings of fact and decision one week later, in which he changed the decision section to read, “Ricki Y. Schultz quit employment, and is disqualified. No exception to disqualification applies.” (Emphasis omitted.)

Schultz requested reconsideration of the ULJ’s amended findings of fact and decision, arguing that she quit with a good reason caused by her employer. On reconsideration, the ULJ affirmed his amended decision. This certiorari appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

We review the decision of the ULJ to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record or the decision is affected by error of law. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005). Whether an employee quit without a good reason caused by the employer is a question of law, which we review de novo. Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000). But that conclusion must be based on factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006). We review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996), giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ, Jenson v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 617 N.W.2d 627, 631 (Minn. App. 2000).

An employee who voluntarily quits employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the reason for quitting is a good reason caused by the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 2005). “A good reason caused by the employer for quitting is a reason: (1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.” Id., subd. 3(a) (2004).

The ULJ found that Schultz quit for personal reasons unrelated to any wrongful acts or omissions of Bartley Sales Company. This finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record. On the Department of Employment and Economic Development Applicant Quit Form that Schultz completed, Schultz identified the following reason for quitting: “Increasingly stressful and hostile environment. Becoming harder and harder to have to go into work daily, headaches increased, pains throughout my body and sharp pains in sides began due to situation.” In response to the form’s question, “Was there a final incident that made you quit?” Schultz stated:

On October 17th wrestled with self whether to ask for the upcoming Friday off without pay or just call in sick because I knew it was going to be a problem since when in August the President told me that my vacation was 2 ½ hours short to be taking the full ten days of vacation. One should not have to be stressed out to have to choose between the truth or a lie when it comes to work.

During the hearing before the ULJ, Schultz cited increased hostility in the workplace and her displeasure at having to complete coworkers’ tasks as reasons for her decision to quit. Schultz also cited the denial of her request to take an unpaid day off as the triggering event that caused her to quit. The record before the ULJ also contained several pages of Schultz’s personal notes beginning in February 2004, which detail when Schultz and other employees arrived at work, took breaks, left work, and took time off. The notes also documented Schultz’s coworkers’ moods and conversations Schultz had with managers and coworkers.

This evidence demonstrates that Schultz quit her employment with Bartley Sales Company for personal reasons, namely, the irreconcilable differences she experienced with others at work and her growing frustration and dissatisfaction with her working conditions, including her employer’s paid- and unpaid-vacation policies. This evidence also establishes that Schultz’s personal reasons for quitting were not the result of any wrongful acts or omissions of Bartley Sales Company that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit. Rather, they were the result of routine frustration caused by working closely with coworkers and management.

The ULJ held that these personal reasons for quitting are not good reasons caused by the employer. We agree. For an adverse working condition to be considered a “good reason caused by the employer for quitting,” the evidence must show that the employee complained to her employer and gave her employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the adverse working condition. Id., subd. 3(c) (2004). The ULJ found that Schultz did not complain to her supervisors at Bartley Sales Company about her reasons for quitting. This finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record. During the hearing before the ULJ, Schultz admitted that she did not submit oral or written complaints to anyone at Bartley Sales Company. On her Applicant Quit Form, Schultz checked the “no” box when asked whether she discussed with her employer the problem that caused her to quit. Finally, Schultz admitted in her appellate brief, “No, I didn’t complain, but they were fully aware of attempts to bring problem areas to their attention.” Because Schultz did not complain to her supervisors at Bartley Sales Company, the allegedly adverse conditions to which she was subjected cannot be considered good reasons to quit caused by the employer.

But even if Schultz had complained, her reasons for quitting do not constitute good reasons caused by the employer. The definition of a “good cause attributable to the employer” does not “encompass situations where an employee experiences irreconcilable differences with others at work or where the employee is simply frustrated or dissatisfied with [her] working conditions.” Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn. App. 1986).

Schultz also argues that the ULJ’s decision should be reversed because Schultz was denied a fair hearing. Schultz maintains that the ULJ was distracted and frequently cut off her testimony. We have expressed concern in the past about an incomplete record arising when a ULJ either hinders or does not help a pro se relator develop relevant issues during the hearing. See, e.g., Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel, 562 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that unemployment hearing officer erred in excluding testimony that employee was discharged for reporting sexual harassment because that testimony is relevant to rebut evidence that discharge was for misconduct). But that did not occur here. The ULJ received testimony from Schultz and from Nielson, asked questions of each witness, and clarified the details of what transpired. The ULJ gave Schultz and Nielson the opportunity to ask questions of one another and to give closing statements. Schultz had ample opportunity to pursue relevant issues, and the record is fully developed. Schultz was not denied a fair hearing.

Schultz also maintains that she received unemployment-benefit payments as a result of the misstatement in the decision portion of the ULJ’s original findings of fact and decision and that, after the ULJ amended his findings of fact and decision, Schultz received a notice from the department ordering her to repay the amount that she received. Schultz challenges the department’s order directing her to repay the benefits.

When the recipient of unemployment benefits is ordered to repay benefits mistakenly paid, the recipient must appeal that order to the department within 30 days after receiving the notice of repayment. Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(b) (Supp. 2005). Failure to do so results in a final order. Id. Schultz presents no evidence, nor does she allege, that she appealed the department’s repayment order. Consequently, this aspect of Schultz’s challenge is not properly before us, and we cannot consider it.

The ULJ’s decision that Schultz quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer is supported by substantial evidence on the record, which was fully developed through a fair hearing. And it is unaffected by legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the ULJ’s determination that Schultz is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.