Court Opinion

ID: 9884164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:40:25.395448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:56.480131
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would hold that McGowan’s behavior did not rise to the level of misconduct contemplated by Minn.Stat. § 268.09 and Tilseth.
As the supreme court has stated, an employer may be justified in discharging an employee, yet, the “issue * * * is not whether [the employee] should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well.” Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet, 346 N.W.2d 142, 143 (Minn.1984).
Here, although the president’s request may not appear unreasonable under the circumstances, the requested delivery was not “connected with” McGowan’s work, and consequently her refusal was not misconduct “connected with her work” as required by section 268.09.
McGowan was employed by Executive Express to pick up and deliver packages for Executive Express. Running a personal errand, even if that errand involved picking up a package, was not within the scope of McGowan’s work assignment. Nor can I agree with the majority’s position that this personal errand was “incidental or implied” from McGowan’s position as a van driver for the company.
Thus, while Executive Express may have had good reason to discharge McGowan, I do not believe her refusal to perform a task outside the scope of her employment established the culpability necessary to disqualify her from receiving unemployment com7 pensation benefits. In my judgment, it was demeaning to the driver for the president of the company to expect this driver to run the president’s personal errands. The driver was hired to pick up and deliver packages that directly related to the economic well-being of the company. Picking up prescription drugs is a highly personal matter which ought not to be delegated. What might have been the practice 50 years ago is not true in 1987, nor should it be.
I would reverse the Commissioner’s conclusion that McGowan’s refusal constituted misconduct.