 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hussein v. Cypress Semi-Conductor Inc.6/15/2004
. We view the findings of the commissioner's representative in the light most favorable to the decision and " will not disturb them as long as there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings." Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Generally, the question of whether an employee quit or was discharged is a question of fact. Souder v. Ziegler, 424 N.W.2d 834, 835 (Minn. App. 1988); Midland Elec., Inc. v. Johnson, 372 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Minn. App. 1985). But we need not defer to the commissioner on an issue of law involving the construction of a statutory definition. See Houston v. Int'l Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d 144, 149 (Minn. 2002) (reversing commissioner's determination that employee's actions amounted to misconduct under 2002 statutory definition). Nor need we accept the commissioner's ultimate determination that an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, which is a question of law reviewed de novo by this court. See Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989); see also Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984) (stating that reviewing court will affirm if findings are supported by evidence and if "the conclusion on those facts is not contrary to the statutory mandate").
Here, the commissioner's representatives determined that relators were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because they quit their employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2002) provides that " n applicant who quit employment shall be disqualified from all unemployment benefits." A "quit" is defined as occurring "when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee's." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2002).
As relators argue, this statutory definition of "quit" requires examination of (1) when the employment ended, and (2) who made the final decision to end the employment. See id. Relators are convincing in their argument that their employment ended not when they submitted their applications for the voluntary workforce reduction program, but when Cypress accepted their applications; at that point, relators could no longer change their minds or rescind the applications. The e-mail announcing the program clearly stated that Cypress could either accept or reject an application, and the testimony of Cypress representatives at the hearings confirmed that the final decision whether to accept an application was made by Cypress. Given these undisputed facts, we conclude that the commissioner's representative erred in determining that relators "quit" their employment merely because they chose to apply for the workforce reduction program.
Our decision and construction of the statutory definition of quit is consistent with the statutory unemployment scheme. If relators did not quit, they were "discharged," which is defined as occurring "when any words or actions by an employer would lead a reasonable employee to believe that the employer will no longer allow the employee to work for the employer in any capacity." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 5 (2002). This statute further states that " layoff due to lack of work shall be considered a discharge." Id. A layoff may, as here, include the right to receive a severance package, which is considered to be wages and is deducted from unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3 (2002).
Although Cypress did not characterize its workforce reduction program as involving layoffs, relators were arguably laid off due to a lack of work. The fact that Cypress did not specifically identify their jobs as necessary for elimination or specify the numbers of layoffs necessary to
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|