Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co., C8-91-971
| Decision Date | 17 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C8-91-971,C8-91-971 |
| Citation | 478 N.W.2d 775 |
| Parties | 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1430 Janice POLLEY, Relator, v. GOPHER BEARING COMPANY, Commissioner of Jobs and Training, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Relator had good cause to quit her job and was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits when her employer demoted her upon her return from maternity leave in violation of Minnesota's Parenting Leave Act.
Charles L. Friedman, Minneapolis, for Polley.
Lisa G. Perszyk, Moore, Costello & Hart, St. Paul, for Gopher Bearing Co.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Nancy J. Joyer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Com'r of Jobs and Training.
Considered and decided by NORTON, P.J., and SHORT and AMUNDSON, JJ.
Relator Janice Polley obtained a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the respondent Commissioner's denial of her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Polley claims the Commissioner erred by determining that she did not have good cause to quit her job with respondent Gopher Bearing Company. We agree and reverse.
Polley began working for respondent Gopher Bearing Company (Gopher) in 1983 as an accounts payable clerk. In 1987, Gopher promoted Polley to a billing clerk position.
Polley took a maternity leave while she was an accounts payable clerk, and another maternity leave while she was a billing clerk. On both of those occasions, when Polley returned to Gopher, she resumed her prior job responsibilities.
Polley began her third maternity leave on March 14, 1990. Prior to her maternity leave, Polley mentioned to Gopher's general manager, Fraser, that if her husband accepted a new job, the "ideal situation" would be for her to stay at home with her family. However, both parties at all times understood that Polley's absence was only a maternity leave. Polley never actually gave notice that she would not be returning to work for Gopher.
When she returned to work on May 1, 1990, she discovered that Gopher had employed someone else to take over her billing clerk position. Polley was given other responsibilities, and in July 1990, she was given a job as Gopher's receptionist. She received a raise at that time.
Shortly thereafter, the office manager reduced Polley's hours from 40 hours per week to seven hours per day, or 35 hours per week. Polley complained to Fraser about the reduction in her hours. Polley also requested a transfer to another position. Fraser agreed that the part-time work would be a problem for her income needs. He guaranteed Polley 35 hours per week and more if other work became available. Despite this promise, however, Polley's hours were again reduced another half-hour per day; thus reducing her hours to 32.5 per week.
On August 14, 1990, Polley gave notice that she was resigning from Gopher so she could stay home with her baby. Polley testified that because her hours had been cut twice, she did not believe any further complaints would be successful. She also believed that if she gave the true reason for her resignation, Gopher might have anticipated a lawsuit and delayed or withheld distributing her profit sharing monies.
Polley filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the Department of Jobs and Training, stating: Fraser responded in a letter to the Department, admitting that Polley's hours and responsibilities had been reduced.
Polley's claim for unemployment benefits was denied. She appealed to a Department referee, who conducted a hearing. The referee received evidence and testimony by Polley and Fraser.
Polley testified that her duties as an accounts payable clerk included paying vendors and making sure everything was sold over cost at a decent profit. Polley was also responsible for other miscellaneous office duties.
Polley characterized her billing clerk duties as "a lot more responsible" than her duties as accounts payable clerk. In addition to many of her prior responsibilities, she billed customers and did expediting. Polley had an associate degree in computer programming and accounting.
Polley considered the receptionist position a "demotion." She did not have "anywhere near the responsibilities that [she] had before." Fraser admitted: "[T]here was a change in responsibility to be sure." Polley described her receptionist duties as answering the telephone, taking messages, and working "will call" when necessary.
Following the hearing, the referee issued findings of fact and a decision affirming the initial denial of unemployment benefits. The referee found that Polley's hours were reduced by one hour per day on July 9, 1990, and an additional half-hour per day on July 11, 1990. Nevertheless, the referee also found that Polley was guaranteed 35 hours of work per week, and that her hours were only reduced by six percent, since she had only averaged 37.5 hours per week in calendar year 1989. In a memorandum attached to his findings, the referee found that, as receptionist, Polley's hours and pay remained the same, and her duties were comparable to her duties as billing clerk.
The referee concluded that Polley had failed to complain prior to resigning, and that the reduction in hours did not provide her with good cause to quit.
Polley appealed the referee's decision to a Commissioner's representative, who affirmed the referee's findings of fact and decision. In a memorandum, the Commissioner's representative explained:
[W]e are persuaded that the receptionist position was a suitable position when compared with the claimant's previous clerical position as a billing clerk. Further, the approximate 12% reduction of the claimant's work hours was an amount legally insufficient to justify the claimant's decision to terminate the employment relationship. And, prior to severing her employment, the claimant did not meaningfully communicate to the employer her dissatisfaction with the reduction in her work hours.
Polley has obtained a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the Commissioner's representative's decision.
Did Polley have good cause to resign when her job responsibilities were changed and her hours were reduced upon her return from maternity leave?
An individual who voluntarily quits a job without good cause attributable to the employer is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(a) (1990). The employee who voluntarily quits has the burden of proving she had good cause to do so. Marz v. Department of Employment Serv., 256 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn.1977). Whether an employee had good cause to quit is a conclusion of law. Zepp v. Arthur Treacher Fish & Chips, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.1978). "[A]n appellate court is not bound by the Commissioner's conclusions of law but is free to exercise its independent judgment." Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. Asper, 428 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn.1988) (citations omitted).
Polley argues that she had good cause to quit her job because Gopher violated Minnesota's Parenting Leave Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 181.940-.944 (1990). The Commissioner's representative failed to address the Parenting Leave Act. Instead, the Commissioner's representative concluded that appellant did not have good cause to quit because the receptionist job was suitable employment and appellant did not communicate her dissatisfaction with her reduced hours to Gopher.
The Parenting Leave Act requires that an employer 1 "must" grant an unpaid leave of absence to a parent "in conjunction with the birth or adoption of a child." Minn.Stat. § 181.941, subd. 1 (1990). The Act requires that an employee be allowed to return to a former position or "a position of comparable duties, number of hours, and pay." Minn.Stat. § 181.942, subd. 1(a) (1990).
The undisputed evidence indicates that Polley's receptionist duties were not comparable to her billing clerk duties. Polley testified that her new job was a "demotion." Fraser admitted that there was a "reduction" in her responsibilities. The record contains no evidence suggesting that the two positions were comparable.
Nor were Polley's reduced hours comparable to those she had worked previously. The parties agree and the Commissioner's representative found that Polley's hours were reduced a total of one and one-half hours a day, from eight to six and one-half. In other words, her hours were reduced from 40 to 32.5 per week, or 18.75%. 2 Such a significant reduction requires a conclusion that Polley's new hours were not comparable to her former hours. See Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf, 310 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn.1981) ().
We note that when Polley returned to work on May 1, 1990, she continued to receive the same hourly wage she had received before her maternity leave. In fact, in July 1990, she received a raise of 35 cents per hour. However, when the reduction in her hours is taken into account, it is apparent that her earnings were reduced.
Although the Commissioner's representative did not consider whether Polley's duties as billing clerk and receptionist were "comparable" within the meaning of the Parenting Leave Act, the Commissioner's representative found the receptionist position was a "suitable" position when compared to Polley's previous billing clerk position. We recognize that at least in some contexts it is a factual question whether proffered employment is "suitable." See, e.g., Hogenson v. Brian Knox Builders, 340 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.App.1983) (). For purposes of Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 2 (1990), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
...offered, but refused, position was "substantially equivalent" to the original position held by the employee); Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co., 478 N.W.2d 775, 778 (Minn. App.1991), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 30, 1992) (evaluating whether duties, salary, and hours were "comparable" as required und......
-
Thao v. Command Ctr., Inc.
...case law and that this court has repeatedly interpreted subdivision 3(c) as conjunctive to the definition in subdivision 3(a). 478 N.W.2d 775, 779 (Minn.App.1991) (holding, in reviewing a prior version of the statute that does not contain these subdivisions, that the relator who complained ......
-
Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc.
...whether an employee had good cause to quit her job when her employer demoted her upon her return from a maternity leave. 478 N.W.2d 775 (Minn.App.1991). When an employer discharges an employee for misconduct, the employee is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn.......
-
Nelson v. Pinnacle Eng'g Inc
...of the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act. See Minn. Stat. §§ 181.940-.944 (2008) (parenting leave act); see also Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co., 478 N.W.2d 775, 778 (Minn. App. 1991) (holding that employee had good reason to quit caused by the employer where, upon employee's return from parenting......