Barrett Construction, Route 4, Box 185, Park Rapids, MN 56470 (respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

Relator Paul Oudekerk challenges his disqualification from reemployment insurance benefits, contending he had good cause to refuse an offer of suitable employment. We affirm.

Oudekerk worked for respondent Barrett Construction for four years when Barrett Construction laid him off due to lack of work. The record indicates that on Sunday, April 26, 1998, David Barrett of Barrett Construction called Oudekerk at home and asked him if he could work the next day. Oudekerk told Barrett that he could not work the next day because he had to perform community service as a result of receiving a fine. Barrett told Oudekerk "that's not my problem" and hung up. The Department of Economic Security issued a determination of disqualification, which the reemployment insurance judge and the commissioner's representative affirmed.

On appeal, this court reviews "the factual findings of the commissioner's representative in the light most favorable to the decision" to determine if the record reasonably supports the representative's findings. Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996) (citation omitted).

Whether the commissioner's representative properly disqualified an employee from receiving reemployment insurance benefits is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Lolling, 545 N.W.2d at 377. A claimant who avoids an offer of suitable employment without good cause shall be disqualified from benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 8(a)(3) (1998). A claimant has good cause for refusal of suitable work only when there is some necessitous and compelling reason for refusal. Minn. R. 3305.0800, subpt. 18 (1997). An agency's interpretation of the statutes it administers is entitled to deference and should be upheld, absent a finding that it is in conflict with the express purpose of the Act and the intention of the legislature. Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. Asper, 428 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1988).

We consider whether Oudekerk's prior obligation to community service is a necessitous and compelling reason to avoid an offer of suitable employment. Minnesota courts have held that inability to accept reemployment because of transportation problems or incarceration is not good cause to refuse suitable work. See Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc., 307 Minn. 356, 358, 240 N.W.2d 314, 316 (1976) (transportation is problem of employee and failure to reach job not good cause to decline offer); Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 257 Minn. 171, 176, 100 N.W.2d 516, 520 (1960) (inability to accept reemployment offer because of incarceration not good cause). Given this precedent and deference to agency interpretation, we conclude that Oudekerk's obligation to perform community service to work off a traffic fine was not good cause to decline the employment offer.

Oudekerk also argues that he chose community service because he did not want to return to an abusive workplace. We find little evidence properly in the record to support this argument. This court cannot consider documents appended to Oudekerk's brief because they are not part of the record below. See Deike v. Smelting, 413 N.W.2d 590, 592 (Minn. App. 1987) (appellate court cannot consider pages appended to brief that are not part of record).

Affirmed.