A06-612

Cina M. Buck,

Relator,

vs.

Bergquist Company,

Respondent,

Department of Employment

and Economic Development,

Respondent.

Filed January 9, 2007

Affirmed

Hudson, Judge

Department of Employment

and Economic Development

File No. 31 06

Cina M. Buck, 50 Hillside Avenue Southwest, Akeley, Minnesota 56433 (pro se relator)

Bergquist Company, 61959 State Highway 38, Bigfork, Minnesota 56628 (respondent employer)

Linda A. Holmes, Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)

Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Minge, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.

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

HUDSON, Judge

Relator Cina Buck challenges the order affirming the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) conclusion that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her job without good reason caused by her employer. Because the record reasonably supports the ULJ’s conclusion, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator Cina Buck was a production controller for respondent Bergquist Company until a work-related injury rendered her physically unable to continue working in that capacity. Unable to perform her duties as a production controller, relator accepted a receptionist position that respondent created specially for her. The receptionist position was full time and paid a wage comparable to the wage relator received as a production controller.

Relator worked as a receptionist for three years. Although she did not assert that the job was painful or difficult, she became increasingly frustrated with her position. She felt unproductive because she “really didn’t do anything except sit there and read books and wait for the phone to ring.” When an opportunity arose to settle her workers’ compensation claim, relator voluntarily chose to accept the terms of the settlement agreement and quit her job instead of continuing in her current position. Relator agreed to resign as consideration for payment of her claim.

After quitting her job, relator applied for unemployment benefits. A Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development adjudicator determined that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by her employer. Relator appealed, but after an evidentiary hearing, the ULJ affirmed the adjudicator. In its findings of fact and decision, the ULJ concluded that relator “exercised a free will choice” to enter into a settlement agreement and resign instead of continuing to work as a receptionist. This decision, the ULJ concluded, was “a personal choice, not an adverse situation caused or created by the employer compelling her to leave.” Relator requested reconsideration. After reconsidering the case, the ULJ affirmed, concluding that his decision was “factually and legally correct.” This certiorari appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N

Relator argues that the ULJ erred by concluding that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer. This court will reverse or modify the decision of the unemployment law judge if it is unsupported by substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005).

An employee who quits employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the employee quit for good reason caused by the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 2005). An employee quits when, at the time his or her employment ended, it was the employee’s decision to end the employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2004). “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.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2004).

A good personal reason is not good cause to quit caused by the employer. Kehoe v. Minn. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 568 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. App. 1997). Likewise, an employee’s frustration or dissatisfaction with his or her working conditions does not constitute good cause to quit. Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn. App. 1986). However, a demotion, including a substantial reduction in wages and a change in hours, may constitute an unreasonable adverse change in working conditions giving rise to good cause to quit. Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Minn. App. 2003).

Here, respondent created a receptionist job for relator after she became physically unable to perform her duties as a production controller. The receptionist job was full time and paid a wage comparable to the wage relator received in her previous position. During her tenure as a receptionist, relator became frustrated with her job because she felt unproductive. This dissatisfaction is what motivated her to agree to settle her workers’ compensation claim and quit her employment instead of continuing to work under the same conditions.

On these facts, we agree with the ULJ that relator’s decision to quit was a personal choice and not the result of an adverse situation caused or created by her employer. Relator did not suffer a demotion, nor did she experience a substantial reduction in pay or change in hours so unreasonable as to give rise to good cause to quit. Although frustration and dissatisfaction with a job due to minimal responsibilities may be good personal reasons to quit, absent some showing that the employer was deliberately trying to frustrate the employee or induce the employee to quit, they do not equate to a good reason to quit caused by the employer.

Affirmed.