Glende v. Commissioner of Economic Sec., C9-83-1789

Decision Date14 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. C9-83-1789,C9-83-1789
Citation345 N.W.2d 283
PartiesEdward GLENDE, Relator, v. COMMISSIONER OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

An employee who is terminated from part-time employment for misconduct and later is laid off from separate full-time employment is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits based on the full-time employment.

Douglas B. Fink, St. Paul, for relator.

Laura Mattson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., PARKER and LANSING, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

Edward Glende appeals a decision of the Department of Economic Security requiring him to repay the unemployment compensation benefits which he received. We reverse.

FACTS

Glende was employed full-time by Pabst Brewing Company (Pabst) and part-time by Marsden Building Maintenance (Marsden). On March 9, 1983, Glende was terminated from his part-time employment at Marsden for misconduct. On March 11, 1983, Pabst notified Glende and a number of other employees that they were laid off from their full-time positions. Neither Pabst nor the Department contend that Glende was laid off because of any fault on his part.

Glende filed for unemployment benefits on March 27, 1983. A claims deputy determined that Glende was terminated from Marsden for misconduct and was therefore ineligible for benefits based on the Marsden employment. This decision was not appealed. On April 20, 1983, a claims deputy determined that Glende was eligible for benefits based on the Pabst employment. Glende received benefits for the period of March 27, 1983, through June 4, 1983, totalling $1,548.

On July 7, 1983, a claims deputy notified Glende that he was disqualified from all benefits because he had been discharged from the Marsden part-time employment for misconduct. On July 14, 1983, the claims deputy instructed Glende to repay the $1,548 that he had received in benefits. The decision was affirmed by a referee and again affirmed by a commissioner's representative. Glende now appeals.

ISSUE

Is an employee, who is terminated from part-time employment for misconduct and later is laid off from full-time employment, disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits based on the full-time employment?

ANALYSIS

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided a virtually identical issue in Berzac v. Marsden Building Maintenance Co., 311 N.W.2d 873 (Minn.1981). In Berzac, the claimants voluntarily terminated their part-time employment and were shortly thereafter laid off their full-time jobs. The Department denied benefits, finding that the employees were disqualified because they had voluntarily terminated their part-time employment. The Court succinctly stated the issue [W]hether an individual, who voluntarily terminates one of multiple employment relationships and thereafter is unemployed by the remaining employer through no fault of the employee, is thereby rendered ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits from any source.

Id. at 874. The Court held that the legislature could not have intended the unfortunate result of precluding the receipt of benefits from any employer, and directed the Department to consider and decide claim petitions as they relate to each of the multiple employers.

In that manner, the department could determine that, as to one employer, the termination was voluntary and without good cause attributable to the employer, but as to the other, the employee might well be entitled to receive unemployment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Irving v. Emp't Appeal Bd.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 3, 2016
    ...of termination from that position. A shorthand description of this argument is the “spill-over” theory. See Glende v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 345 N.W.2d 283, 285 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (rejecting the notion that a “ ‘spill-over’ taint of disqualification” requires blanket disqualification for all......
  • Holman v. Olsten Corp., Olsten Health Care Service, CX-86-102
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 1986
    ...the Commissioner, who adhered to the position unsuccessfully argued to the supreme court in Berzac. See Glende v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 345 N.W.2d 283 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The only distinction between the two cases was that the basis for the employee's disqualification after lea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT