Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1207 Eric Kangas, Respondent, vs. Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Filed May 21, 2012 Affirmed Ross, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 27273669-3 Andrew P. Pierce, Falsani Balmer Peterson Quinn & Beyer, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent) David L. Tilden, Hanft Fride, Duluth, Minnesota (for relator) Lee B. Nelson, Amy R. Lawler, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge. SYLLABUS An electronically transmitted administrative appeal from a determination by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development is "[a] written statement delivered" to the department under Minnesota Statutes section 268.103,

subdivision 2(b), which perfects the appeal if the transmission occurs within the statutory appeal deadline. OPINION ROSS, Judge Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc., terminated Eric Kangas's employment, and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development deemed him ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was terminated for employment misconduct. In separate letters the department notified Kangas of that determination and that he was also ineligible because he failed to show that he was available and actively searching for employment. Kangas appealed the not-available-and-actively-searching determination by indicating the appeal on the department's website, but he did not click the link that would indicate that he intended also to appeal the misconduct determination. The unemployment law judge (ULJ) exercised jurisdiction and decided the misconduct appeal nonetheless because Kangas's described reason for his appeal was that he had not committed misconduct. The ULJ reversed both ineligibility determinations, and Industrial Welders now appeals by writ of certiorari to this court, arguing that the ULJ lacked jurisdiction to decide the misconduct-determination appeal. Because Kangas's statement that he did not commit misconduct was a written statement delivered to the department sufficient to appeal the misconduct determination, we affirm. FACTS Eric Kangas sought unemployment benefits from the department of employment and economic development after Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc., terminated his 2

employment in February 2011 for violating company policy by removing his toolbox without a supervisor first inspecting it for company property. The department sent Kangas a determination of ineligibility notice on March 10, 2011, concluding that he had been terminated for misconduct. The notice indicated a deadline of March 30, 2011, for Kangas to appeal the determination administratively. On March 25, 2011, Kangas received an additional departmental notice of ineligibility because he failed to show that he was available and actively searching for employment. That second notice indicated an administrative appeal deadline of April 14, 2011. On March 28, Kangas, using the department's website, noticed his appeal of the not-available-and-actively-searching determination of ineligibility. In that same website communication process, he specified textually that he was appealing because he did not commit theft by removing the toolbox. Despite his articulated basis for his appeal, he did not click on the misconduct "issue identification number" to indicate that he was appealing that determination. At an evidentiary hearing on the administrative appeal, the ULJ stated that Kangas had appealed only the determination that he was available and actively searching for suitable employment, not the misconduct determination. Kangas conceded that his electronic designation indicated that he was appealing only one determination, but he contended that he intended to appeal both. The ULJ stated that "a rather liberal approach [is taken] to what constitutes an appeal request." On this ground and because Kangas's appeal would have been timely as to both determinations, the ULJ accepted both appeals. The ULJ then reversed both determinations and held that Kangas was eligible to receive benefits. 3

Industrial Welders requested reconsideration, arguing that Kangas failed to appeal the misconduct determination and that the ULJ therefore lacked authority to reverse that determination. The ULJ affirmed its prior decision, holding that Minnesota Statutes section 268.103, subdivision 2(b) (2010), allows an administrative appeal without requiring an appellant to include any specific words. Industrial Welders appeals by writ of certiorari. ISSUE Did the ULJ err by exercising jurisdiction over Kangas's administrative appeal from the determination of ineligibility due to employment misconduct? ANALYSIS Industrial Welders argues that the ULJ did not have jurisdiction to hear Kangas's appeal from the misconduct determination because Kangas never actually appealed that determination. When we review a ULJ's decision, we may affirm it, reverse or modify it, or remand the case for further proceedings. Minn. Stat.

Download A11-1207, Eric Kangas, Respondent, vs. Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc.,

Minnesota Law