Edwards v. Yellow Freight Systems

• Decision Date: 18 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. C6-83-1135,C6-83-1135
• Citation: 342 N.W.2d 357
• Parties: Malcolm EDWARDS, Relator, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, Respondent, and Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 357

342 N.W.2d 357

Malcolm EDWARDS, Relator, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, Respondent, and Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

No. C6-83-1135.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Jan. 18, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

Repeated failure to comply with an employer's regulation to provide two hours advance notice when unable to report to work and persistent absenteeism constitute misconduct under Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(6).

Malcolm Edwards, pro se.

Yellow Freight Systems, pro se.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Laura E. Mattson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security.

Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and WOZNIAK and LANSING, JJ., without oral argument.

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

Malcolm Edwards appeals by writ of certiorari from a decision by the Commissioner of Economic Security affirming his disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits during a 30-day suspension period. We affirm.

Edwards began working for Yellow Freight on August 9, 1977. He did not work from September 1977 until March 10, 1982, due to injuries sustained in several automobile accidents. On March 9, 1982, Edwards received a medical release from his doctor which said that he could return to work without restrictions. On March 11, he returned to work as a dock worker on the night shift (1:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.), earning $13.21 per hour. Shortly after Edwards returned to work, severe attendance problems arose. He was counseled about the attendance problems, but they continued.

From June of 1982 through November of 1982, Edwards was absent for 15 days due to sickness. In addition to the 15 days, Edwards failed to report to work on several other days. Yellow Freight has a regulation that an employee must call in two hours prior to the beginning of a shift when he or she will be absent. Edwards failed to report for work and failed to call in prior to the beginning of work on August 2, August 29, September 29 and November 30, 1982. He received warning letters for his poor attendance, a warning letter for his failure to call in on August 2, and letters of reprimand for his failure to call in on August 29 and September 29. Edwards appealed the August 2 letter to a grievance committee composed of employers and Teamsters. The grievance committee reduced the letter of warning to a letter of reprimand.

Edwards failed to report for work or to call in prior to his starting time on November 30. He was discharged. Edwards acknowledged that he knew he was supposed to call in prior to the start of his shift and that absenteeism was the reason for the discharge. He does not dispute the fact that he did not come in or call before the start of work. Edwards did submit a letter from his doctor dated December 1, 1982, stating that he had been under the doctor's care and unable to work since November 29, 1982. Edwards appealed the discharge to his union. A grievance committee reduced the discharge to a 30-day suspension with no compensation. Edwards applied for unemployment benefits for the 30 days during which he was suspended.

A claims deputy for the Department of Economic Security determined that Edwards was suspended from his employment for reasons other than misconduct. This determination was reversed by an appeal tribunal. The appeal tribunal found, among other things, that Edwards was suspended for 30 days because he did not report to work or call in prior to the start of work on November 30, 1982. The appeal tribunal further found that Edwards had received three prior warning letters for not keeping his employer informed of his availability for work. The appeal tribunal also found that although Edwards was sick with a viral infection on November 30, 1982, he was not hospitalized or incapacitated to such an extent that he could not have called his employer to keep him informed of his availability for work. The appeal tribunal concluded that Edwards was suspended for misconduct and thus is...