Mark Stengrim, Relator, vs. Arctic Cat, Inc., Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C2-97-1675

Mark Stengrim,

Relator,

vs.

Arctic Cat, Inc.,

Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 Filed March 17, 1998

 Affirmed

 Foley, Judge*

Department of Economic Security

File No. 4497 UC 97

Mark Stengrim, Rural Route 2, Box 52, Warren, MN 56762 (relator pro se)

Delray Sparby, Ihle & Sparby, P.A., 312 No. Main Avenue, P.O. Box 574, Thief River Falls, MN 56701 (for respondent Arctic Cat)

Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (ror respondent Commissioner)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Davies, Judge, and Foley, Judge.

*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 FOLEY, Judge

Relator Mark Stengrim seeks review of an order disqualifying him from benefits because he refused suitable reemployment without good cause. Because the commissioner's representative's findings are supported by the record and establish that relator was disqualified from receiving benefits, we affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

We review the factual findings of the commissioner's representative in the light most favorable to the decision and determine whether evidence in the record reasonably tends to sustain those findings. Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996). However, the ultimate determination of whether an employee was properly disqualified from receiving benefits is a question of law, and we exercise independent judgment when deciding that question. Id.

An employee is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits if the employee, "[f]ailed, without good cause, * * * to accept * * * suitable reemployment with a former employer, when offered." Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 2 (1996).

Relator challenges the commissioner's representative's finding that the assembly job offered him was suitable reemployment.

In determining whether or not any employment is suitable for a claimant, the commissioner shall consider the degree of risk involved to health, safety, and morals, physical fitness and

prior training, experience, length of unemployment and prospects of securing local employment in the claimant's customary occupation, and the distance of the available employment from the claimant's residence.

 Id., subd. 2(a). Employment is not suitable

if the wages, hours, or other conditions of the employment offered are substantially less favorable to the claimant than those prevailing for similar employment in the locality.

 Id., subd. 2(b)(2). The commissioner is vested with wide discretion to determine whether offered work is suitable reemployment. Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 288, 74 N.W.2d 518, 526 (1956); Mastley v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 347 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Minn. App. 1984).

Before his lay-off, relator worked in Arctic Cat's service parts warehouse, storing, locating, and moving parts from one warehouse to another. The assembly work offered relator after his brief layoff had the same wages and hours as relator's previous parts warehouse job. In addition, the assembly work offered the possibility of increased pay within six months. The commissioner's representative found that (1) relator was qualified for the work because it was considered entry level, (2) nothing in relator's experience or training was so unique or so specialized as to render assembly work unsuitable, and (3) relator's chances of securing higher paying work for which he was qualified was unlikely in the rural location where he resided. The commissioner's representative's findings are supported by the record and establish that the offered employment was suitable reemployment.[1]

The commissioner's representative also found that relator refused the assembly job without good cause. For the purpose of refusing suitable reemployment,

[a] claimant has good cause * * * only when there is some necessitous and compelling reason for refusal. * * * Good cause reasons for refusal are usually personal to the claimant and extraneous to the employment, and are usually of a temporary and emergency nature so as not to detach the claimant from the labor market.

Minn. R. § 3305.0800, subpt. 18.

Relator provides no support for his argument that he was entitled to benefits for as long as it took him to find alternative employment or retraining. Compare Christensen v. Fiberite Corp., 269 N.W.2d 20, 21 (Minn. 1978) (requirement that employee must accept suitable reemployment is intended "to disqualify an employee whose unemployed

status is volitional"). Relator's reasons are not necessary or compelling and fail to establish good cause. See Minn. R. 3305.0800, subpt. 18.

  Affirmed.

[ 1] Relator argues that the assembly job was unsuitable because it involved a higher risk to health and safety. This argument will not be considered on appeal because it was not addressed at the reemployment hearing and is not properly before this court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (appellate court may not consider matters outside record, not produced and received in evidence below); Appelhof v. Commissioner of Jobs and Training, 450 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Minn. App. 1990) (evidence not received at administrative hearing not part of record on appeal and not reviewed). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion to strike those portions of employee's brief that address matters not considered at the administrative hearing below. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110 (record on appeal is limited to matters considered at lower proceeding).