Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan, C9-84-507

• Decision Date: 11 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. C9-84-507,C9-84-507
• Citation: 354 N.W.2d 569
• Parties: BALDINGER BAKING COMPANY, Relator, v. Dean STEPAN, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 569

354 N.W.2d 569

BALDINGER BAKING COMPANY, Relator, v. Dean STEPAN, Respondent Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

No. C9-84-507.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Sept. 11, 1984.

Review Denied December 20, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 1(3)(b) does not afford an additional review for an employer who has not filed a timely appeal from a determination of a claims deputy.

Bruce J. Douglas, Minneapolis, for relator.

Dean Stepan, pro se.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Regina M. Chu, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and LESLIE and CRIPPEN, JJ.

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Relator Baldinger Baking Company appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Economic Security that the Department was without jurisdiction to hear relator's appeal of the determination by the claims deputy. We affirm.

FACTS

On or about August 7, 1983, respondent Dean Stepan was discharged from his employment with relator Baldinger Baking Company and applied for unemployment compensation benefits. A claims deputy from the Department of Economic Security determined that he was involuntarily separated from his employment for reasons other than misconduct and was not disqualified from receiving benefits.

The decision of the deputy, entitled "Determination on Benefit Rights," was mailed to relator-employer on September 15, 1983. The decision contained a statement that the order would become final unless an appeal was filed in writing within 15 days after the date of mailing the order. Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3). Because the order was allegedly mishandled by a bookkeeper, the management of Baldinger was not aware of the claim and no appeal was filed.

On December 5, 1983, long after the appeal period expired, relator filed an "employer protest" to Stepan's claim for unemployment compensation benefits alleging that Stepan was discharged for misconduct. The Department handled the letter as an appeal and a referee dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On relator's appeal of that order to the Commissioner, the Commissioner's representative affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3) (Supp.1983), relator's appeal from the decision of the claims deputy was properly dismissed as untimely.

ANALYSIS

Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2, outlines the procedure for determining the validity of claims to the Department by a claims deputy. An appeal from the decision of the claims deputy must be filed within 15 days after the mailing of notice of the determination. Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3). An appeal heard under this section would be a trial de novo. Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 3. The Department treated relator's dispute on the determination as an appeal and dismissed it as untimely.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has strictly construed appeals under the Employment Services Act. Semanko v. Dept. of Employment Services, 309 Minn. 425, 244 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Jackson v. Minn. Dept. of Manpower Services, 296 Minn. 500, 207 N.W.2d 62 (1973).

It is undisputed that, in this case, no timely appeal was taken from the order of the claims deputy. The time limit for an appeal will not be extended. Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).

Relator-employer's argument that it was denied due process of law because it did not have the opportunity to present its evidence of respondent's misconduct is without force. Had it filed a timely appeal of the decision of the claims deputy, it would have had the opportunity to present its case. The fact that the notice of termination was misplaced by an employee and was not brought to the attention of management is irrelevant. Notice given to an agent is notice given to a principal. Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 165 N.W.2d 244 (1969). Further, the time limit set forth for appeals from decisions rendered by Department claims deputies under § 268.10, subd. 2(3), is absolute. Lack of a timely appeal requires dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction regardless of alleged mitigating circumstances. Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., supra.

The heart of relator's appeal is the argument that § 268.10, subd. 1(3)(b), added by Minn. Laws 1982 ch. 1, 329, constitutes a separate review mechanism for Department determinations on disqualifications. Subdivision 1(3) provides that, if an employer fails to file separation information within 7 days of mailing the notice of claim, the Commissioner shall:

(a) Determine the validity of an individual's claim based on the claimant's statements...