Court Opinion

ID: 9664536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:20:52.283148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:07.068109
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the Commissioner’s representative for the following reasons:
1. As the majority recognizes, Diane McCourtney’s absences were frequent and excessive. She received two warnings yet her absences continued. We have previously said that excessive absenteeism alone may demonstrate misconduct. See, e.g., Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 118, 120 (Minn.App.1985); McLean v. Plastics, Inc., 378 N.W.2d 104, 107 (Minn.App.1985). I believe McCourtney’s frequent absences evidenced a “disregard of standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of its employees.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973).
2. Under the majority’s analysis, an employer becomes the victim of an employee’s personal problems with obtaining child care. An employer is forced to (1) put up with the employee’s extensive absences or (2) pay for the resulting unemployment at potentially great expense. I do not believe it was the legislature’s intent to force employers into this catch 22 position. Rather, as respondents point out, other social welfare programs have been developed to handle the child care issue.
3. Although we must be careful to liberally construe the unemployment statutes in favor of awarding benefits, in my opinion the majority decision goes beyond the “outer limits of eligibility.” See McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 595 (Minn.1988). Such expansion of the definition of misconduct is, I believe, for the supreme court or the legislature to decide.