Rutten v. Rockie Intern., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. C5-84-133,C5-84-133
• Citation: Rutten v. Rockie Intern., Inc., 349 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. App. 1984)
• Parties: Mark A. RUTTEN, Relator, v. ROCKIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 334

349 N.W.2d 334

Mark A. RUTTEN, Relator, v. ROCKIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

No. C5-84-133.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

June 5, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence was sufficient to support the finding of the Commissioner's representative that relator's $300 per week draw was against his commissions and not straight salary. The employer had the right to reassign relator to his former position, which was on a straight commission basis, and the reassignment was not "good cause" attributable to the employer for relator to quit his job and qualify for unemployment compensation benefits.

Donald C. Hanson, Alexandria, for relator.

Frederick L. Grunke, St. Cloud, for Rockie Intern., Inc.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Heckt, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Com'r of Economic Sec.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and FORSBERG and RANDALL, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

In this economic security case, relator sought certiorari to review the decision of the Commissioner's representative that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had discontinued his employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable to his employer. A claims deputy had made the initial determination of disqualification, that determination was affirmed by the Department Appeals Tribunal and affirmed by the Commissioner's representative. Relator concedes he voluntarily terminated his employment, but argues that he did so with good cause attributable to his employer. We affirm.

FACTS

Relator was employed by respondent Rockie International in October, 1982, to sell advertising for brochures which Rockie distributed in grocery stores and elsewhere. Relator was employed on a straight commission basis and was to be paid $85.00 for each ad sold and printed.

In January, 1983, after relator had failed to sell any ads, he suggested a new advertising program involving coupons printed in brochures and redeemable at distributing stores. Rockie agreed the program had merit and to run it on an experimental basis. To help relator start the program, Rockie agreed to pay relator a $300 weekly advance against his commissions. There was no agreement that this $300 advance would be considered straight salary, nor, apparently, was there any written agreement stating that the $300 was a draw against commissions. Several of the $300 checks had the notation "draw" or "adv. comm." written on them. Despite this, relator claims the checks were intended to be salary.

After about fourteen weeks of the new program, Rockie decided to put the program on hold, and asked relator to travel to Morris, Minnesota, to sell the regular brochure. Such sales were to be on the same terms as relator worked under before the experimental program was begun--that is, on straight commission, with no weekly draw against commissions.

Relator did not travel to Morris, but did not inform Rockie he was quitting. Rockie did not know relator had discontinued his employment until it was notified by the unemployment office that relator had filed a claim for unemployment benefits.

ISSUE

Does the record support the determination of the Commissioner that relator voluntarily discontinued his employment without good cause attributable to the employer?

ANALYSIS

In reviewing Economic Security cases, our scope of review is limited and well defined.

The narrow standard of review requires that findings be reviewed in the light most favorable to the decision, and if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them, they will not be disturbed.

White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn.1983); see also Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Minn.App.1984); Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 347 N.W.2d 515, 518 (...