Deering v. Unitog Rental Services
| Citation | 381 N.W.2d 486 |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-85-1783,C2-85-1783 |
| Parties | Joyce DEERING, Relator, v. UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES, Respondent, Department of Economic Security, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
Syllabus by the Court
Telephoning her employer to report that her truck would not start, instead of obtaining alternate transportation to work, did not constitute misconduct disqualifying relator from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits.
William L. Stockman, Coon Rapids, for relator.
Unitog Rental Services, pro se.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Peter C. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., Saint Paul, for Dept. of Economic Sec.
Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J. and PARKER and FOLEY, JJ.
Relator, Joyce Deering, appeals by writ of certiorari from a determination that she was discharged for misconduct and was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
Joyce Deering worked for Unitog Rental Services until November 1984, when she was discharged due to her poor attendance record. She was rehired by Unitog in February 1985, on the condition that she maintain a perfect attendance record for six months. Deering signed an agreement that indicated that if she were absent or tardy even once during that six month period, she would be immediately dismissed.
On Thursday, April 25, 1985, Deering picked up her truck from a repair shop. That evening, while driving home from work, she experienced difficulty with the truck's steering mechanism. Despite this problem, she believed she would be able to drive the truck to work the next day. She intended to take the truck back to the repair shop the next day after work.
When she arrived home on Thursday evening, Deering telephoned a friend, and during the course of the conversation complained that her husband had not taken care of the truck repairs. Deering's husband overheard her complaint, became upset, and pulled the wires out of the telephone. That night, unknown to Deering, her husband also pulled the coil wires out of her truck.
On the morning of April 26, Deering was unable to start her truck. At approximately 5:50 a.m. she called Unitog from a neighbor's telephone and explained her problem. She telephoned Unitog again at approximately 7:15 a.m. and spoke to her supervisor, who informed her that she was discharged.
Did the Commissioner's representative erroneously determine that Deering was discharged for misconduct and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits?
Unemployment compensation benefits are not awarded to an individual who has been discharged from employment due to misconduct. Minn.Stat. Sec. 268.09, subd. 1(2) (1984). In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973), the Minnesota Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term "misconduct":
[T]he intended meaning of the term 'misconduct' * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' * * *.
Id. at 374-75, 204 N.W.2d at 646. An employer may be unhappy with an employee's job performance and may perhaps have good cause to discharge that employee; however, whether or not the employee was guilty of "misconduct" disqualifying him or her from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits is a legal determination. As stated in Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet, 346 N.W.2d 142, 143 (Minn.1984), "[t]he 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."
Therefore, although the terms of their agreement allowed Unitog to discharge Deering when she was late for work only once, the agreement cannot also define whether or not Deering was guilty of misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes. Indeed, while we sympathize with Unitog's frustration when Deering once again was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzales v. Industrial Com'n of State of Colo., 85SC182
...County School Dist., 732 P.2d 616 (Colo.1987); accord, e.g., Causin v. Blache, 498 So.2d 101 (La.Ct.App.1986); Deering v. Unitog Rental Services, 381 N.W.2d 486 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). It has been widely recognized that a violation of an employer's disciplinary rule does not per se require deni......
-
Gilbert v. Department of Corrections, 96-3040
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Langley v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 444 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Deering v. Unitog Rental Servs., 381 N.W.2d 486, 487 (Minn.Ct.App.1986)(holding discharged employee not disqualified, despite prior absences and a contract making her subject to imme......
-
Deike v. Smelting
...engaged in misconduct is one of law; thus, this court need not defer to the Commissioner's decision. Deering v. Unitog Rental Services, 381 N.W.2d 486, 487 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). The Commissioner's findings of fact, however, are entitled to deference. Cary v. Custom Coach, Inc., 349 N.W.2d 331......
-
Reddmann v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc.
...last two absences were justified and did not demonstrate a disregard of the employer's business. See Deering v. Unitog Rental Services, 381 N.W.2d 486 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (employee's violation of an employer's rule after receiving a final warning did not constitute misconduct because the emp......