Opinion
No. C4-96-226.
Filed August 13, 1996.
Appeal fromt the Department of Economic Security, Agency File No. 7089 UC 05.
Perry M. de Stefano, Western Minnesota Legal Services, (for Relator).
Nancy J. Carlson, Anderson Burgett, (for Respondent).
Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, (for Respondent Commissioner of Economic Security).
Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge and Peterson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Relator Kristian Buer challenges the decision of the Commissioner's representative affirming the denial of her claim for reemployment insurance benefits. She argues that she discontinued her employment with good cause attributable to the employer when she quit after she was demoted from a supervisory position to a non-supervisory position due to alleged inadequate job performance as a supervisor. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Presbyterian Family Foundation, Inc. provides residential services for people with developmental disabilities.
Relator Kristian Buer began working at one of respondent's facilities in 1976 as a resident counselor. A resident counselor provides direct care to people with developmental disabilities. In 1990, Buer was promoted to the position of "key counselor," a supervisory position. A key counselor supervises approximately twelve resident counselors.
In 1995, Buer was demoted from the key counselor position to a resident counselor position "due to dissatisfaction with [her] job performance as a supervisor * * *." She was to receive the same amount of pay as she did as a key counselor. Two days after her demotion, Buer quit her job.
She filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits, and the Department of Economic Security's claim representative denied Buer's claim because she voluntarily discontinued employment without good cause attributable to the employer. The reemployment insurance judge and the Commissioner's representative affirmed the decision. This appeal followed.
DECISION
A claimant is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits if she voluntarily terminates employment without good cause attributable to the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268,09, subd. 1(a) (1994). "Good cause" to quit has been defined as a reason that is "real, not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable, not whimsical; there must be some compulsion produced by extraneous and necessitous circumstances."
Ferguson v. Department of Employment Serv., 311 Minn. 34, 44 n. 5, 247 N.W.2d 895, 900 n. 5 (1976). The standard is "reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive * * *." Id.
The question of whether an employee voluntarily terminated employment with good cause attributable to the employer is a question of law that may be independently reviewed on appeal. Wood v. Menard, Inc., 490 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn. App. 1002).
As Buer properly notes, she was not demoted for misconduct. Thus, the reasonableness of the employer's decision to demote her is not an issue. See Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 268, 270 (Minn.App. 1995) (Unless the demotion was for misconduct, "the legitimacy of the employee's reassignment is not relevant; an employee may have good cause to quit even if the employer did not act unreasonably or unfairly in making a substantial change").
Buer argues that the Commissioner's representative erred in basing the decision on Dachel and in focusing some of the findings on the reasonableness of the demotion from the employer's perspective. Buer claims that the Commissioner's representative should have based the decision on this court's more recent decision in Cook v. Playworks, 541 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.App. 1996), and focused on the reasonableness of the decision from the employee's perspective. We agree.
In Cook, this court remanded the case for a determination of the reasonableness of the employee's decision considering "all relevant circumstances" including loss of wages, the extent of the change of job duties, the reasonable career expectancies of the employee because of tenure with this or other employers, and the employee's remaining chances for advancement after the demotion.
Id. at 369.
Thus, under Cook, the following analysis applies to the facts of this case:
Loss of Wages — Buer was paid the same amount as a resident counselor as she was paid as a key counselor. She argues, however, that she would lose future raises because she had already reached the top of the resident counselor pay scale.
Extent of Change of Duties — Buer's job changed from a supervisory position to a non-supervisory position.
Reasonable Career Expectations — Buer claims she had a reasonable expectation of continuing as a key counselor.
Chances for Advancement After Demotion — Buer claims that her future chances for advancement after the demotion were "practically non-existent." However, she also notes that "[t]he only promotion possibility from resident counselor is to key counselor" Even when the reasonableness of the demotion from the employer's perspective is not taken into account, Buer did not have good cause to quit. She did not lose any money because of the change — as compared to the employees in Dachel and Cook whose wages were reduced 10 to 36%. Her duties changed a lot, but that is to be expected in a change from a supervisory to a non-supervisory position. The subject matter of the work was still the same. Buer claims that she had a reasonable expectation of continuing as a key counselor, but it is not reasonable for an employee to expect to continue as a supervisor if the employee is not doing a good job of supervision. As Buer concedes, the key counselor position is the "top of the ladder." She does not indicate that her demotion would have prevented her from "climbing one more rung." Thus, analyzing the facts under Cook rather than Dachel, the determination that Buer did not have good cause to quit is proper.