Court Opinion

ID: 9883720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:14:28.897232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:29.668915
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority and recommend that the decision of the Commissioner of Jobs and Training (Com*763missioner) be affirmed. The claimant did not have good cause attributable to his employer for leaving his job and therefore should be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Minn. § 268.09, subd. 1(a) (Supp.1987).
An appellate court’s scope of review with respect to the decision of the Commissioner is limited. In Reserve Mining Co., Babbit Division v. Gorecki, 316 N.W.2d 547 (Minn.1982), the supreme court set forth the following standards:
The narrow standard of review upon appeals from decisions of the commissioner is that the findings are to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the decision, and if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them, they will not be disturbed.
Id. at 549.
Assessing the relative credibility of the testimony is a function assigned by law to the hearing examiner whose decision will not be disturbed on review unless clearly erroneous. Jeane Thorne Temporary Service, Inc. v. Elliott, 351 N.W.2d 393. 395 (Minn.App.1984).
While the employer has the burden of proving that the employee has quit voluntarily and, therefore, is not eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits, the employee has the burden of proving that the resignation was for good cause attributable to the employer. Marz v. Department of Employment Services, 256 N.W.2d 287, 289 (Minn.1977). Hawthorne admitted that he quit voluntarily. The referee’s findings state that Hawthorne quit after the employer announced overtime would no longer be paid on a straight time basis on a separate check without payroll deductions but would be paid on a time and one-half straight time basis with standard payroll deductions. The referee points out in his findings that the record fails to show this change in method of overtime payment was a violation of any duty employer owed to employee.
The Commissioner stated in his decision that “the findings of fact as found by the referee are in accordance with the evidence and are therefore adopted as the findings of fact of the Commissioner.” In the memorandum accompanying the decision, the Commissioner quotes the transcript from the appeal hearing to show that Hawthorne failed to establish his burden of proof under Marz:
Q. So it wasn’t a matter of you not being paid for your overtime, it was a matter of when you were going to be paid for the overtime?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay and you were confident that in fact you were going to be paid for your overtime, you just didn’t want to be paid then on Friday, you wanted to be paid on Monday?
A. I was confident that I would eventually get the money, but I was also afraid that it was, it would be possible that it would be put off even another week, I had no way of knowing at that point in time.
Q. Okay, so your contention was you were just, you were not sure when you were going to be paid for the overtime?
A. That’s right.
The Commissioner further found and stated in the memorandum:
After considering the evidence of record and assessing the relative credibility of the parties, the referee concluded that the claimant terminated his employment because he wasn’t happy with the methods proposed by the employer to pay his overtime. * * *
We note, finally, that we have some genuine concerns regarding the claimant’s credibility and sincerity in his pursuit of this claim. It appears from the claimant’s own testimony that he was not even certain what he was thinking about when he terminated his employment.
This being the case, it is extremely difficult for us to credit any of the claimant’s testimony regarding the basis for his termination. The claimant’s contradictory testimony stands in distinct contrast to the employer’s testimony, which was consistent and lucid regarding the conversations and events leading to the *764claimant’s decision to terminate his employment.
The Commissioner found that Hawthorne failed to meet his burden of proof and therefore failed to establish that his resignation was for a good cause attributable to his employer.
Based on the Commissioner’s findings and in view of the limited scope of review of this court, I would conclude that the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.