Tilseth's Claim, In re
| Decision Date | 23 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43701,43701 |
| Citation | 295 Minn. 372,204 N.W.2d 644 |
| Parties | In re Claim of Kenneth J. TILSETH, Respondent, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent, v. MIDWEST LUMBER COMPANY, Relator. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A truck-driving employee who was determined not to have been intoxicated at work by the trier of fact and was never considered by his own employer to be intoxicated and never prohibited from driving his truck for that reason but who, on the other hand, has repeatedly consumed alcoholic intoxicants while at work is guilty of 'misconduct' as defined in Minn.St. 268.09, subd. 1, sufficient to justify a partial forfeiture of unemployment benefits.
Swanson & Prueter, Minneapolis, for relator.
Kenneth J. Tilseth, pro se.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Curtis D. Forslund, Sol. Gen., Peter C. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Peters, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Dept. Manpower Services.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, MacLAUGHLIN, and OLSON, JJ.
*
This proceeding is before this court by writ of certiorari upon application of the relator-employer to review an order of the commissioner of manpower services. It raises the issue of whether the consumption of intoxicants by a truck driver during working hours constitutes statutory 'misconduct' sufficient to justify a partial forfeiture of unemployment benefits.
Claimant, Kenneth J. Tilseth, was discharged by his employer, Midwest Lumber Company, after 5 years of employment. He subsequently applied for unemployment benefits. A claims deputy for the Department of Manpower Services determined that Tilseth had been discharged for misconduct and disqualified him for 5 weeks' unemployment and reduced his maximum benefit amount by 5 times his weekly benefit amount pursuant to Minn.St. 268.09, subd. 1. Tilseth appealed the deputy's determination to the department's appeal tribunal. The employer claimed Tilseth had been discharged (a) for rudeness to a customer and (b) for the frequent presence of the odor of alcohol on his breath during employment and, by inference, for consuming alcoholic intoxicants while at work.
While the findings of fact of the appeal tribunal with respect to claimant's conduct are not as explicit as desirable, it did find:
(a) The claimant had not displayed overt symptoms of intoxication at work 'except for talking loudly;'
(b) The claimant's alleged conduct had never resulted in the employer's curtailing the employee from driving the employer's truck at work:
(c) The odor of alcohol had been present on claimant's breath on repeated occasions at work. 1
From the latter finding of fact, it may reasonably be inferred that claimant consumed alcoholic beverages while on duty.
The findings of fact and decision of the appeal tribunal were appealed by the employer to the commissioner of the Department of Manpower Services, whose order affirming the decision is before this court for review.
The issue is whether repeated consumption of intoxicants by an employee truckdriver during working hours constitutes 'misconduct' within the meaning of Minn.St. 268.09, subd. 1, sufficient to justify partial forfeiture of unemployment benefits. The statute reads in part that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
'If such individual * * * was discharged for misconduct, not amounting to gross misconduct, connected with his work or for misconduct which interferes with and adversely affects his employment, if so found by the commissioner, for not less than five nor more than eight weeks of unemployment in addition to and following the waiting period, * * * and the maximum benefit amount payable to such individual shall be reduced as follows:
(a) by an amount equal to the weekly benefit amount times the number of weeks for which such individual was disqualified, when the separation occurs as a result of discharge for misconduct.'
This court has not previously defined 'misconduct' as the term is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vester v. Board of Review of Oklahoma Employment Sec. Com'n
...Mass. 94, 384 N.E.2d 642 (1979); Carter v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, 364 Mich. 538, 111 N.W.2d 817 (1961); In re Tilseth, 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973); Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1982); Laswell v. Industrial Commission, 534 S.W.2d 613 (Mo.Ct.App.1976); Gaunc......
-
Schwartz v. Talmo, 43146
... ... Compensation was paid by the employer through January 30, 1967, at which time it was discontinued. On July 27, 1967, the employee filed a claim petition for additional compensation. Prior to the hearing of this claim, an amendment to Minn.St. 176.021, subd. 1, 1 became effective on ... ...
-
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald, C9-96-156
...and, then, to discern whether the legislature intended "misconduct" to encompass that behavior. See Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 373-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 645-46 (1973) (accepting the administrative tribunal's findings of fact, but construing "misconduct" as a matter of law).......
-
84 Hawai'i 305, Hardin v. Akiba
...evincing ... wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests[.]" Tuff, 520 N.W.2d at 486 (citing Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (citation omitted)).11 Louisiana jurisprudence defines misconduct as "an act of willful or wanton disregard of the ......