Preview:

Bekele Betalom, Relator, vs. Campbell Soup Company, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. C0-96-501, Court of Appeals Unpublished, ...

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. sec. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C0-96-501 Bekele Betalom, Relator, vs. Campbell Soup Company, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. Filed October 8, 1996 Affirmed Toussaint, Chief Judge Commissioner of Economic Security File No. 9724UC95 Bekele Betalom, 1009 Third Avenue, Apt. 306, Worthington, MN 56187 (pro se relator) Campbell Soup Company, 115 Ninth Street, Worthington, MN 56187 (respondent/employer) Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent-commissioner) Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Randall, Judge, and Amundson, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Relator, Bekele Betalom, seeks review of a decision denying him reemployment insurance benefits. The Commissioner's representative concluded that Betalom committed disqualifying misconduct by violating the standards of behavior the employer had a right to expect. Because there is support in the record for the Commissioner's representative's determinations, we affirm. DECISION

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/501.htm[4/16/2013 7:39:36 PM]

Bekele Betalom, Relator, vs. Campbell Soup Company, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. C0-96-501, Court of Appeals Unpublished, ...

The determination of whether an employee has committed disqualifying misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros. Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). This court reviews the findings of the Commissioner's representative, not the reemployment insurance judge, even when the findings involve witness credibility. See Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995) (citing Semanko v. Department of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428, 244 N.W.2d 663, 665 (1976)). The Commissioner's representative's findings should be viewed in the light most favorable to the decision and should not be overturned if there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain the findings. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989) (citing McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters. Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 594 (Minn. 1985); White v. Metropolitan Medical Center 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983)). The ultimate determination of whether an employee committed misconduct is, however, a question of law upon which this court may exercise its independent judgment. Id. (citing McGowan v. Executive Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 594 (Minn. 1985); Smith v. Employers' Overload Co., 314 N.W.2d 220, 221 (Minn. 1981)). The reemployment insurance statute is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed in favor of awarding benefits. Ress, 448 N.W.2d at 523. As a result, the employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee has committed disqualifying misconduct. Id. An employee who commits misconduct is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. The applicable statute provides: (1) Disqualifying conditions. An individual separated from any employment under paragraph (a), (b), or (d) shall be disqualified for waiting week credit and benefits. For separations under paragraphs (a) and (b), the disqualification shall continue until four calendar weeks have elapsed following the individual's separation and the individual has earned eight times the individual's weekly benefit amount in insured work. (b) Discharge for misconduct. The individual was discharged for misconduct, not amounting to gross misconduct connected with work or for misconduct which interferes with and adversely affects employment. Minn. Stat.

Download 501.pdf

Minnesota Law