Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, No. A07-0348.
| Decision Date | 08 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. A07-0348. |
| Citation | 749 N.W.2d 63 |
| Parties | The WORK CONNECTION, INC., Relator, v. Son Q. BUI, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
M. Gregory Simpson, Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for relator.
Son Q. Bui, Brooklyn Park, MN, pro se respondent.
Lee B. Nelson, Katrina Gulstad, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, MN, for respondent department.
Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, Presiding Judge; MINGE, Judge; and SCHELLHAS, Judge.
Relator employer appeals from the award of unemployment-insurance benefits to respondent employee, arguing that the employee who relies on public transportation is not available for employment throughout the labor market area as required by Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006). We affirm.
Relator The Work Connection, Inc., is a temporary-staffing service that employed Son Bui from February 2, 2004, to August 29, 2006. Bui worked at Work Connection's client, Technical Resin and Packaging, until he called in sick on August 29, 2006, and his employment was terminated. Two days later, Bui called Work Connection and requested to be placed in a new job.
Bui lives in Brooklyn Park; he does not own a car. He either rode a bicycle or, in inclement weather, used public bus transportation to commute to his job at Technical Resin. That work site was located about four miles from his residence. Both his home and the job were within walking distance of a bus route. The record does not indicate that he had any difficulty getting to work using these methods of transportation for the two years he was employed by Work Connection.
On September 18, Work Connection offered to place Bui in a position at a warehouse in Coon Rapids. The warehouse was six miles from where he lived. Bui asked whether it was accessible from a bus line. He was told that it was not. He asked relatives whether they could give him a ride and was told they could not guarantee him a ride to work every day. Bui declined the job offer because the work was not accessible to a bus line and eventually applied for unemployment benefits.
DEED initially determined that Bui was qualified for benefits. Work Connection contested the award of benefits, arguing that Bui had rejected its offer of suitable employment without "good cause." An unemployment law judge (ULJ) found that because Bui relies on public transportation and the job offered was not on a bus line, Bui had rejected the offer for good cause. Work Connection moved for reconsideration, arguing instead that because Bui relied on public transportation, he was not "available for suitable employment" as required by Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006), and was therefore ineligible for benefits. The ULJ rejected that argument, noting that
Bui would have public transportation to a reasonable number of locations in the labor market area. He would be available for employment at any location which is on a bus line. Therefore, it cannot be said that Bui is not available for employment in the labor market area.
This certiorari appeal follows.
I. Can the court of appeals consider issues that are not addressed by the ULJ in the initial decision but are raised and addressed for the first time on a motion for reconsideration?
II. Did respondent's reliance on public transportation make him ineligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to meet the statutory requirement that he have transportation throughout the labor market area to be considered "available for suitable employment" under Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006)?
The first issue is whether the argument that Bui is ineligible for benefits because he is not available for work throughout the labor market area as required by Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006), can be properly considered on appeal. This is a legal question, which we review de novo. See Jenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 721 N.W.2d 286, 289 (Minn.2006) ().
Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) argues that in the initial proceeding before the ULJ, Work Connection claimed that Bui did not have "good cause" to refuse its offer of employment. DEED asserts that Work Connection did not claim, and the ULJ did not consider, whether Bui was ineligible for benefits because of the different requirement of "availability" under Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e), until Work Connection moved for reconsideration. Accordingly, DEED argues that the "availability" argument is not properly before us on appeal.
Minn.Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7 (2006), does not specifically indicate how arguments brought before the ULJ on reconsideration, rather than at the initial hearing, should be treated on appeal to this court. On a request for reconsideration, the employer or the employee may comment on perceived factual or legal error in a decision, and the ULJ may modify or affirm the decision. Id., subd. 2(a), (b) (2006). The decision on reconsideration is DEED's final action. Id., subd. 2(f) (2006). It is this final action that is subject to the review of this court. Id.
Moreover, when reviewing a ULJ's final decision, this court may
affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are:
(1) in violation of constitutional provisions;
(2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the department;
(3) made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) affected by other error of law;
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious.
Id., subd. 7(d). We note that the introductory language provides for reversal or remand "if the substantial rights of the [relator] may have been prejudiced" based on "error of law," without regard to whether any such error was considered by the ULJ before or after the initial evidentiary hearing. Id. This indicates that we may take up issues even if they were first considered by the ULJ after a reconsideration motion. A contrary decision would leave the final decision of the ULJ unreviewable.
In its motion for reconsideration, Work Connection argued that Bui was ineligible for benefits not because he had declined a job offer and did not comply with Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13c, but because he did not have "transportation throughout the labor market area" as required under the availability requirement of Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e). This argument was not raised at the original hearing. However, in the final reconsideration order, the ULJ ruled that, although he had not considered the availability argument in the initial hearing, Bui was "available for employment" because he had reliable transportation to a reasonable number of locations within the labor market area. It appears that the record was sufficiently developed; there was no request on reconsideration to introduce additional evidence.
Because the ULJ addressed this issue in the final ruling under review on appeal and because it appears that the record was sufficiently developed for the ULJ to render a decision, we conclude that Work Connection's argument that Bui was ineligible for benefits because of his unavailability for suitable employment under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e), is properly before this court.
The second issue is whether Bui was available for employment and thus eligible for unemployment benefits despite his reliance on public transportation. This court reviews a final ULJ decision to determine whether it is affected by an error of law, not supported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4)-(6). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn.2002). We view the ULJ's findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them as long as there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings. Id.
An applicant must be "available for suitable employment" in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4) (2006). That phrase is defined by law:
(a) "Available for suitable employment" means an applicant is ready and willing to accept suitable employment in the labor market area. The attachment to the work force must be genuine. An applicant may restrict availability to suitable employment, but there must be no other restrictions, either self-imposed or created by circumstances, temporary or permanent, that prevent accepting suitable employment.
....
(e) An applicant must have transportation throughout the labor market area to be considered "available for suitable employment."
Minn.Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15.1
As a preliminary matter, Work Connection urges that we treat the transportation question in determining availability for work the same as in determining eligibility after rejecting a job offer or quitting a job. However, those are there distinctly different bases for determining eligibility for benefits, and each has its own statutory standard. Whether or not an applicant has "good cause" for rejecting employment requires a finding that the applicant rejected work for a reason that would cause a reasonable individual who wants suitable employment to decline the offer. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13c(b) (2006). This finding involves a different standard of inquiry from the one at hand. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (). Likewise, whether an applicant had "good reason" to quit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halvorson v. County of Anoka, A09-672.
...that end, courts narrowly construe statutory provisions that disqualify a person from unemployment benefits. Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, 749 N.W.2d 63, 70 (Minn.App.2008), review granted (Minn. June 18, 2008) and appeal dismissed, 767 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. July 6, 2009). When reviewing the de......
-
Modeen v. Meribel Enters.
..."labor market area may differ depending on the work experience and location of each applicant for benefits." Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, 749 N.W.2d 63, 69 (Minn. App. 2008), review granted (Minn. June 18, 2008) and appeal dismissed (Minn. July 6, 2009). For example, "the relevant labor ma......
-
Kiyimba v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.
...the ULJ to find that Neumann had not been engaging in reasonable diligent efforts to find suitable employment); Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, 749 N.W.2d 63, 72 (Minn. App. 2008) (explaining that the "ULJ's [factual] finding that Bui, as an unskilled, trainable worker, was available for empl......
-
Neumann v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., A13–1007.
...for jobs might have exhausted the pool of “suitable” opportunities available in and around his small town. See Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, 749 N.W.2d 63, 69 (Minn.App.2008) (“The labor market may differ depending on the work experience and location of each applicant for benefits. Thus, th......