This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CX-99-939

Gordon E. Ess,
Relator,

vs.

Olsten Staffing Services,
Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,
Respondent.

Filed December 28, 1999
Affirmed
Schumacher, Judge

Department of Economic Security
File No. 7385UC98

Peter B. Knapp, Wendy Badger, Certified Student Attorney, 875 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for relator)

Olsten Staffing Services, Staffing Services America Inc., c/o The Frick Company, Post Office Box 283, St. Louis, MO 63166-0283 (respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

SCHUMACHER, Judge

Relator Gordon E. Ess challenges a disqualification determination, arguing that he had good cause to refuse a job offer because it was not suitable and required excessive transportation. We affirm.

FACTS

Ess worked for respondent Olsten Staffing Services, a temporary agency, from March 12 through June 5, 1998 as a merchandiser earning $11 an hour; and from June 15 through June 19, 1998 constructing wall shelving at $9 an hour. On June 23, 1998, Olsten offered Ess work as a customer service representative with U.S. Bancorp in downtown St. Paul at $9.75 an hour, a position that would last three months and could lead to permanent employment. Ess initially accepted the offer but on June 25, 1998, canceled because he did not want to pay for parking or bus fare and because he had no experience in banking. Ess lives in Apple Valley and has a B.S. in business administration.

D E C I S I O N

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). On agreed facts, 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. Id.

A claimant who fails to accept or avoids an offer of suitable employment without good cause is disqualified from benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 8(a)(2), (3) (Supp. 1999). Suitable employment is employment in the claimant's labor market area that is reasonably related to the claimant's qualifications. Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23(a) (Supp. 1999). 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, subp. 18.

Ess argues that the job offer was unsuitable because he had no experience working in a bank. Working as a customer representative for a bank at $9.75 an hour appears to be suitable employment for Ess, however, as it is reasonably related to his qualifications. As the commissioner's representative noted, much of Ess's previous work experience involved customer service and contact. A degree in business administration is not inconsistent with work at a bank. Nothing in the record suggests Ess was unqualified for the position offered on June 23, 1998.

Ess argues that the job offer was unsuitable because he had told Olsten that he did not wish to travel more than 10 miles to an assignment. He suggests that 18 miles from his residence to downtown St. Paul renders the job unsuitable. We conclude that it is not unreasonable under the facts of this case to expect that Ess should be required to travel to the job in downtown St. Paul to reach employment. Transportation is the problem of an employee and failure to reach a job is not good cause to decline an employment offer. See Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc., 307 Minn. 356, 358, 240 N.W.2d 314, 316 (1976).

Affirmed.