Source: http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/0507/opa041848-0726.htm
Timestamp: 2018-11-15 21:16:20
Document Index: 438663030

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 71', '§ 268']

Rodney E. Duklet, Relator, vs. Stellar Concrete & Masonry, Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A04-1848, Court of Appeals Unpublished, July 26, 2005.
Rodney E. Duklet,
Stellar Concrete & Masonry,
File No. 10391 04
Rodney E. Duklet, 16826 Grommesch Circle, Shakopee, MN 55379 (pro se relator)
Stellar Concrete & Masonry, Stellar Contractors, Inc., 755 Cliff Road East, Suite 200, Burnsville, MN 55337 (respondent)
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the determination that he quit his employment without a good reason attributable to his employer, thereby disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record reasonably supports the findings and the decision that relator quit without good reason attributable to his employer, we affirm.
From June 1997 to November 2003, relator Rodney Duklet was employed by respondent Stellar Concrete & Masonry (Stellar) as a finisher foreman. In that capacity, Duklet supervised a crew of construction workers in commercial concrete and masonry projects and earned approximately $40 per hour. Due to the seasonal nature of the construction business, Stellar is often forced to terminate several people per week during the winter months. Termination decisions are largely influenced by a worker’s seniority within the company. As Stellar’s president explained, “[T]he people that have been with us the longest, . . . our leaders and supervisors, are generally the ones that get laid off last.”
Duklet was scheduled to retire from Stellar in January 2004. But in the fall of 2003, and faced with the prospect of winter layoffs, Duklet offered to take a “voluntary layoff” in order to ensure that “somebody else who had a wife and kids” would not be laid off. In addition, he explained that he “didn’t want to work when it was cold [outside]” and that he would “rather have [been] laid off than somebody else.” When questioned by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ), Duklet testified:
Q: Okay. When you took the voluntary layoff did you know that you weren’t going to be returning to work?
A: Pretty much so, yes. I guess to admit that I do. I just didn’t want to walk outside. I worked outside since I was twelve years old. I didn’t want to work in the cold.
A: I mean lay me off so I can be warm.
The ULJ found that Duklet “volunteered to be laid off,” concluding that he quit his employment because “the decision to end the employment was [Duklet’s].” The senior unemployment-review judge (SURJ) declined to conduct further proceedings and adopted the findings and decision of the ULJ in full.[1] This appeal follows.
We normally review the decision of the SURJ rather than that of the ULJ.[2] Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). But when, as here, the SURJ adopts the ULJ’s findings of fact and decision, this court’s review is necessarily limited to the ULJ’s findings of fact and decision. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (2004) (explaining that the court of appeals may review the SURJ’s decision under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2a(a) (2004)).
Duklet challenges two of the factual findings made by the ULJ. On appeal, this court views the factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision; and if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them, they will not be disturbed. White v. Metro. Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983).
Duklet first challenges the finding that he “quit when he chose to take voluntary retirement on 11-1-03.” But the ULJ’s finding actually states that Duklet “volunteered to be laid off on November 1, 2003. The applicant intended to retire as of January 1, 2004.” Nevertheless, Duklet himself testified that he would rather have been “laid off than somebody else” and that he was planning to retire in January 2004. Because there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the ULJ’s finding that Duklet voluntarily agreed to be laid off, we will not disturb it.
Duklet next challenges the finding that Stellar would not have laid him off if he had not volunteered and that “[c]ontinuing work was available” for him. In his brief, Duklet explains that another senior employee had been laid off in late 2003 and that “work was slow and sporadic.” But this information was not offered at the hearing. Regardless, Stellar’s president specifically stated that if Duklet had not offered to leave, he would have been retained and “somebody else would’ve had to leave.” Because there is evidence in the record to reasonably sustain the ULJ’s finding, we will not disturb it.
II. Decision to Quit Employment
Duklet essentially argues that he did not quit his employment, explaining that while his retirement was completely voluntary, his “lay off was [Stellar’s] sole decision.” Duklet maintains that although he agreed to the layoff, the final decision to terminate was made by Stellar, and that he had been willing to return to work if requested but that such a request was never made. We must therefore determine whether Duklet quit of his own volition or whether he quit because of a good reason caused by his employer.
A. Quit Employment
“Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quits is a question of fact[.]” Midland Elec., Inc. v. Johnson, 372 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Minn. App. 1985). This court views the factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision below. White, 332 N.W.2d at 26. If there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings, they will not be disturbed. Id. Subject to certain exceptions, an unemployment-benefits applicant who quits his employment shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (Supp. 2003).[3] “A quit from employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee’s.” Id., subd. 2(a) (Supp. 2003).
Here, the ULJ determined that Duklet quit his employment. The record clearly supports the fact that Duklet, approaching retirement, quit his employment so “somebody else” would not have to lose their job. Duklet also admitted that he would not be returning to Stellar after agreeing to a voluntary layoff because he would be retiring in a couple of months anyway. The decision to quit was Duklet’s alone; Stellar simply accepted Duklet’s offer to quit. Duklet’s actions therefore fall under the statutory definition of “quit.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a). Because the record supports the fact that Duklet quit his employment of his own accord, he is statutorily disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Id., subd. 1.
B. Good Reason Caused by Employer
Whether an employee has a good reason to quit caused by the employer is a question of law, which we review de novo. Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000). In general, an applicant who quits employment without a good reason caused by the employer is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 2003). In Minnesota,
[a] good reason caused by the employer for quitting is a reason:
Id., subd. 3(a) (Supp. 2003).[4]
Here, the record makes clear that Duklet quit his employment through no fault of—or without a good reason caused by—his employer. Stellar was not in any way responsible for Duklet’s decision to leave early; the decision was Duklet’s alone. Nor can Duklet’s seemingly altruistic motive to quit—so that younger workers with families would not have to be laid off—be attributed to his employer as a significant and compelling reason for Duklet to quit for purposes of unemployment compensation.
[1] Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2a(a) (2004), gives the SURJ “discretion to decline to conduct a de novo review” if, as here, the ULJ affirms a prior determination issued by the Department of Employment and Economic Development.
[2]Prior to the amendment of the unemployment-benefits statutes in 2003, the commissioner’s representative reviewed the decisions of the ULJ. The amendment created the new position of SURJ, who acts in a similar capacity as the commissioner’s representative under the previous schema. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2 (2004); 2004 Minn. Laws ch. 183, § 71. Therefore, similar standards of review apply to this court’s review of a SURJ’s decision.
[4] In addition, “[n]otification of discharge in the future, including a layoff due to lack of work, shall not be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(d) (Supp. 2003). But Duklet was never in danger of discharge. Instead, he had plans to retire in January 2004.