Opinion
No. C3-97-1135.
Filed January 13, 1998.
Appeal from Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Agency No. 4731 UC 96.
Gregory K. Larson, Supervising Attorney, Thomas F. Murtha IV, Certified Student Attorney, (for Relator)
St. Otto's Home, (Respondent Employer)
Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, (for Respondent Commissioner)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Relator argues the commissioner's representative erred in denying reemployment insurance benefits as a result of relator's misconduct. Relator's failure to answer respondent's questions for the third time does not rise to the level of misconduct. We reverse.
FACTS
On April 17, 1996, relator David R. Posch was terminated from his employment with respondent St. Otto's Home. Respondent concluded that relator was involved in the theft of drugs and his refusal to cooperate with the investigation resulted in an act of insubordination.
On April 2, 1996, two managers from St. Otto's staff questioned relator for approximately 20 minutes about what had transpired the night a resident complained about missing some pills. When asked whether he touched the bottle of pills, relator responded that he had not. Relator was then asked to write down his account of what transpired. The next day relator again met with respondent and provided his written statement. Respondent noticed inconsistencies between relator's oral and written accounts of what had happened. In his written account, relator indicated that he picked up the bottle of pills, while in his oral account, he denied having touched the bottle. When questioned about these inconsistencies, relator explained that he did not recall picking up the bottle of pills until he started writing down the details.
Relator was asked to meet with management once again to clarify the discrepancies in his oral and written statements. Relator's attorney advised respondent that relator would show up for the meeting because he did not want to be terminated for insubordination, but relator would not make any statements regarding the missing pills. When relator was questioned about the inconsistent statements, he refused to answer based on the advice of counsel and the fact that he felt he had already answered the questions at an earlier meeting.
After relator was terminated, he filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits. A department claims representative granted relator benefits because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was guilty of misconduct. A department reemployment insurance judge reversed the department's determination, however, finding relator was discharged for misconduct because he failed to cooperate with respondent's investigation.
The commissioner's representative modified the insurance judge's decision and found that relator had been discharged for gross misconduct. Relator appealed. The commissioner's decision was reversed and the case remanded for a determination as to whether relator committed misconduct. The commissioner's representative then filed a decision finding relator was terminated for misconduct as a result of his failure to cooperate with the investigation.
DECISION
When the findings of fact are not significantly in dispute, the primary question in economic security cases becomes whether the facts support the commissioner's conclusions of law. McGowan v. Executive Express Tran. Enters., Inc. , 420 N.W.2d 592, 594 (Minn. 1988). In this case, the findings of fact are not in dispute, so the question becomes whether the commissioner erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that relator committed misconduct. Id. Since the commissioner's conclusions of law are open to more scrutiny by this court, we are free to exercise our independent judgment. Id. Therefore, this court must decide whether relator's refusal to answer respondent's questions qualified as misconduct.
Individuals guilty of misconduct are disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (1996). The legislature, however, has not defined misconduct. As a result, through judicial interpretation, misconduct is now defined as
conduct evincing such a 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 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).
An employee is under an obligation to be truthful to his employer. Cherveny v. 10,000 Auto Parts , 353 N.W.2d 685, 688 (Minn.App. 1984). In fact, dishonesty in an investigation constitutes misconduct because it violates the "standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee." Id. (quoting Tilseth , 295 Minn. at 374-75, 204 N.W.2d at 646). Similarly, an employee's refusal to return to the office to discuss problems constitutes misconduct. Herreid v. Moore Data Management Servs. , 392 N.W.2d 613, 615 (Minn.App. 1986); see also Blau v. Masters Restaurant Assocs. , 345 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn.App. 1984) (finding employee's refusal to discuss employer's complaints, coupled with clear progression of conduct evincing disregard for the job, constituted misconduct).
On the other hand, an employee's refusal to continue discussing a complaint with an employer does not necessarily constitute misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.09. Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Ctr., 347 N.W.2d 852, 853 (Minn.App. 1984) (emphasis added). Moreover, an employee does not demonstrate a willful disregard for the employer's interests if the only reason offered for an employee's termination is his unwillingness to continue discussing vague complaints. Id.
In this case, respondents argue that relator demonstrated an intentional disregard for the employer because he was dishonest and failed to answer the questions asked of him. Relator, however, was neither dishonest nor uncooperative. Relator may not have admitted at the initial interview that he touched the bottle of pills, but he admitted handling the pills in his written statement. Relator told his supervisors that he was nervous at the initial meeting and did not remember handling the pills until he was writing down the details. More importantly, relator affirmed that his written statement was an accurate depiction of what took place.
Next, relator fully discussed the issue with respondent at two prior meetings. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates a progression of conduct that shows a disregard for the job. In fact, relator met with his supervisors as requested and continued to show up for work. He also complied with their instructions to provide a written account of what happened. Relator refused to further discuss the matter with St. Otto's at the third meeting because his attorney advised him against it; there was a threat of criminal prosecution; and, most importantly, he had discussed the matter on two prior occasions.
Relator's actions do not rise to the level of misconduct. Nothing in the record shows relator intentionally tried to deceive respondent, nor does the record indicate he failed to cooperate. The commissioner's representative erred in conducting that relator committed misconduct and in denying reemployment insurance benefits. In accordance with this decision, relator is entitled to receive reemployment insurance benefits. Reversed.
Since this court is reversing the commissioner's decision, we decline to consider relator's argument that his constitutional right against self-incrimination was violated.