Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C7-86-560,C7-86-560 |
| Citation | 393 N.W.2d 380 |
| Parties | Robert J. BEYER, Jr., Relator, v. HEAVY DUTY AIR, INC., Department of Jobs and Training, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A separation from employment by one who is chemically dependent need not always be "due to" the chemical dependency.
2. The record supports the Commissioner's determination that relator's separation from employment was due to job dissatisfaction, rather than chemical dependency.
Richard A. Grayson, St. Paul, for Robert J. Beyer, Jr.
Carol A. Ellingson, St. Paul, for Heavy Duty Air, Inc.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Peter C. Andrews, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Dept. of Jobs and Training.
Considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J. and HUSPENI and CRIPPEN, JJ., with oral argument waived.
Relator has requested review of a determination that he is not entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to the "serious illness" exception to disqualification. We affirm.
After working for one month at Heavy Duty Air, Inc. as a manufacturing manager, Robert Beyer voluntarily resigned on September 27, 1985, and applied for unemployment compensation benefits. At the hearing held by a department referee to determine Beyer's right to benefits, Beyer testified that he resigned because of long hours, because he felt the job environment was unstable, and because he disliked his boss, who he believed had an unprofessional attitude.
After both parties had concluded their testimony, the referee noted a statement in the record which indicated that Beyer had been diagnosed as chemically dependent. However, in response to questioning, Beyer stated that his chemical dependency had nothing to do with his separation from employment.
The referee determined that Beyer should be allowed to receive unemployment compensation benefits, due to the chemical dependency exception to the disqualification statutes. A Commissioner's representative reversed, finding that Beyer did not separate from his employment due to his chemical dependency, but that he resigned because of job dissatisfaction. Beyer has appealed.
Did the Commissioner's representative erroneously determine that Beyer resigned due to job dissatisfaction and not due to his chemical dependency?
The chemical dependency exception to disqualification under the unemployment statutes provides:
An individual shall not be disqualified under [the voluntary quit and misconduct provisions] of this subdivision under any of the following conditions:
* * *
(b) The individual is separated from employment due to his own serious illness provided that such individual has made reasonable efforts to retain his employment;
An individual who is separated from his employment due to his illness of chemical dependency which has been professionally diagnosed or for which he has voluntarily submitted to treatment and who fails to make consistent efforts to maintain the treatment he knows or has been professionally advised is necessary to control that illness has not made reasonable efforts to retain his employment.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 268.09, subd. 1(2)(b) (1984) (emphasis supplied).
The referee issued several findings indicating that Beyer had a drinking problem during the time he was employed at Heavy Duty Air. The referee therefore concluded that Beyer should be allowed to receive unemployment compensation benefits under the above statutory provision. However, the referee also specifically found that Beyer voluntarily discontinued his job because of stress due to a long commute, long hours and disrespect by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Embaby v. Department of Jobs and Training
...representative's determination regarding the reason for an employee's separation is a factual determination. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, 393 N.W.2d 380 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); Harringer v. AA Portable Truck and Trailer Repair, Inc., 379 N.W.2d 222 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). As such, that determinatio......
-
Bey v. W.W. Johnson Meat Co.
...denied (Minn. Aug.15, 2000). The employee's reason for quitting is a fact determination for the ULJ. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc., 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing as factual finding ULJ's determination of reason for employee's quit). Citing and relying nearly exclusive......
-
Fay v. 5 Star Field Servs. LLC
...App. 2012). But the reason why an employee quit employment is a factual question determined by the ULJ. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc., 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (examining why an applicant quit as a question of fact). "[F]indings that are supported by substantial evidence wi......
-
Reinhard v. Fed. Cartridge Co.
...3(a) (2012). The reason why an employee quit employment is a factual question for the ULJ to determine. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc., 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing determination of reason for quit as factual). We review factual findings in the light most favorable to......