Title: Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros.
Citation: 346 N.W.2d 159
Docket Number: C5-83-414
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 1984

346 N.W.2d 159 (1984) Ellen M. COLBURN, Relator, v. PINE PORTAGE MADDEN BROTHERS, INC., Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. No. C5-83-414. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 30, 1984. *160 Ellen M. Colburn, pro se. Peter C. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondents. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. PER CURIAM. Relator, a discharged employee of respondent, Pine Portage Madden Brothers, Inc., brings for a review, by writ of certiorari, the determination of the Commissioner of Economic Security that relator was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because of statutory misconduct. Relator was employed as a dining room waitress at respondent employer's summer resort and was discharged because of an incident occurring on August 7, 1982. On the evening of that day, the employer had dinner reservations for a group of some 400 persons, and relator was one of several waitresses scheduled for work in the dining rooms. Outside this employment, relator performed with a singing group that was scheduled to perform at a high school graduating class reunion at 7:30 p.m. on that date. Several weeks prior to that date, she had requested a vacation day off so she could attend that scheduled performance. The employer's manager told her that he expected her to work but that he would permit her to depart as soon as all of the guests had been served, without the necessity of remaining until the tables had been cleared and reset at the conclusion of the dinner. He assigned her to serve a group of 60 people, and she was aware that the group was expected between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. The group was slow to arrive, and by 7:20 p.m., the time that relator would have had to leave if she were to participate in her singing engagement, only the soup course of the dinner had been served. She thereupon stopped serving and went to the high school. She was discharged on her return to work the next day. She filed a claim petition for unemployment compensation on August 26, 1982. Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2) (1982), provides for disqualification in these words: We judicially amplified the meaning of misconduct under the provisions of subdivision 1(2) in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973), adopting language used in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941): 295 Minn. at 374-75, 204 N.W.2d at 646. Applying the statutory principle of misconduct, the appeals tribunal concluded: The decision of the appeals tribunal was affirmed by the representative of the commissioner, who added these words: The determination of the commissioner is a mixed question of fact and law. Because the findings of fact are not without support in the evidence, and because the conclusion on those facts is not contrary to the statutory mandate, we affirm. Affirmed. [1] In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973), we reversed an appeal tribunal's finding that the frequent presence of the odor of alcohol on an employed truckdriver's breath during employment was not a cause for discharge for misconduct.