Opinion
No. C9-96-61.
Filed June 25, 1996.
Appeal from the Department of Economic Security, File No. 7681UC95.
Janis J. Yaggy, (Relator Pro Se)
ACE Independent Living Consultants, Inc., (Respondent)
Kent E. Todd, (for Respondent Commissioner of Economic Security)
Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994)
Unpublished Opinion
In this certiorari appeal, relator Janis Jean Yaggy argues the Commissioner's representative erred by concluding Yaggy was discharged from respondent ACE Independent Living Consultants, Inc. (ACE) for misconduct. We affirm.
Facts
Yaggy worked for ACE as a personal care attendant. ACE's personnel policies manual (the manual) requires employees to provide at least two hours' notice of inability to work. Despite being aware of this policy, Yaggy failed to report to work July 17-20, 1995, and did not contact ACE regarding such absences. On July 20, ACE stressed the importance of the call-in policy and warned Yaggy about missing work or being tardy without notifying ACE. On Monday, July 24, when Yaggy did not report for work or follow the call-in policy, ACE terminated her.
Decision
Whether an employee has committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). The findings of the Commissioner's representative are reviewed in a light most favorable to the decision and will not be overturned if evidence in the record reasonably tends to sustain those findings. Id. The ultimate determination regarding employee misconduct, however, is a question of law subject to an appellate court's independent review. Id.
1. The findings of the Commissioner's representative indicate (1) Yaggy was aware of ACE's call-in policy but failed to comply with such policy when she missed work July 17-20, (2) ACE warned Yaggy about the call-in policy, (3) Yaggy again failed to follow the call-in policy on July 24, and (4) ACE discharged Yaggy based in part on her "knowing violation of [ACE's] call-in policy after she had been warned." There is support in the record for these findings based on the testimony and exhibits presented by ACE.
2. An individual discharged from employment for misconduct that interferes with and adversely affects employment is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (Supp. 1995). Misconduct is limited to
"conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer."
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)).
An employer has the right to expect employees to arrive on time for work. Evenson v. Omnetic's, 344 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Minn.App. 1984). Failure to report to work or notify the employer can qualify as misconduct. Moeller v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 281 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn. 1979). Even a single absence from work can constitute misconduct. Del Dee Foods v. Miller, 390 N.W.2d 415, 417 (Minn.App. 1986). An employer has the right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism, and the violation of such rules can constitute misconduct. Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co., 374 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn.App. 1985). An employee's repeated failure to comply with an employer's notice requirement qualifies as misconduct. Kemp v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 385 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.App. 1986); Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing, 343 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn.App. 1984); Edwards v. Yellow Freight Sys., 342 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn.App. 1984).
Here, Yaggy's repeated failure to follow the call-in policy evidences a deliberate disregard of ACE's interests and standards. Accordingly, we conclude Yaggy was discharged for misconduct. Further, Yaggy does not allege that her termination was voluntary and due to "good cause attributable to the employer." See Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(a). Thus, her arguments regarding (1) ACE's unprofessional management, (2) salary disagreements, and (3) ACE's failure to discipline her for other violations of the manual are irrelevant to the issue of misconduct. Additionally, we find no merit in Yaggy's argument that ACE's call-in policy is vague.
Affirmed.