 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bolstad v. Computer Concepts & Services2/26/2002
Relator challenges the decision by the commissioner's representative disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because of misconduct. Relator contends that her refusal to accept an assignment that would require extended overnight travel away from her ill daughter was not misconduct. Because relator knew her job could require overnight travel, we affirm.
FACTS
On March 1, 1999, relator Melody Bolstad began work at Computer Concepts and Services, Inc. (CCSI) as a computer consultant. CCSI is located in St. Cloud and provides computer consulting services primarily in Minnesota, but also in other parts of the country.
CCSI president Patti Delano interviewed relator for the CCSI job. Delano testified that she informed relator that the job might require travel "on certain projects, depending on where the client is located" and that such projects might take, "multiple days and multiple weeks, or months, of travel." Paul Abram, a former vice-president at CCSI, testified that it was common for computer consultants to travel overnight and that some employees at CCSI had done so while he worked there.
Relator testified she did not know that CCSI served clients located outside Minnesota or more than a commuter's drive from St. Cloud. She stated that she was never told that she might be required to travel and stay overnight for any given assignment nor did she know other employees at CCSI who were required to do so.
Relator is a single mother of a teenage daughter who suffers from mental illness. Relator was never assigned to a project that required more than commuter travel until December of 2000 when Delano alerted her that she would be assigned to a project in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, beginning in January. The length of the project was unknown. Relator said she was led to believe that the project could last up to six months. Delano testified that relator did not tell her of relator's daughter's mental illness; relator only told her that "she could not be gone out of town overnight because of her daughter." Relator refused the assignment.
On January 5, 2001, CCSI terminated relator for refusing the assignment. Relator applied for unemployment insurance benefits from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. The department denied her request, finding that relator had not "quit because of a good reason caused by the employer." Relator appealed to an unemployment law judge. After a hearing, the unemployment law judge amended the department's decision, finding that relator was disqualified because of misconduct.
Relator appealed to the commissioner's representative. The commissioner's representative affirmed the findings and conclusions of the unemployment law judge. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Under Minnesota law,
n applicant who was discharged from employment by an employer shall not be disqualified from any unemployment benefits except when:
(1) the applicant was discharged because of employment misconduct. Minn. Stat. ยง 268.095, subd. 4 (2000).
On appeal, we review the decision of the commissioner's representative, rather than that of the unemployment judge. Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Bd. of Minneapolis, 563 N.W.2d 275, 276 (Minn. App. 1997). Decisions of the commissioner's representative are accorded particular deference. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).
The commissioner's representative's determination that an employee is disqualified for reasons of misconduct is a mixed question of law and fact. Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). We review
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.
|
|