Waconia Farm Supply, Respondent, vs. Michael L. Weinandt, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

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

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C6-97-769

William C. Crezee,

Relator,

vs.

Best Buy Company,

Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 Filed January 27, 1998

 Affirmed; motion denied

 Toussaint, Chief Judge

Department of Economic Security

File No. 10605-UC-96

William C. Crezee, 12800 County View Court, Burnsville, MN 55337 (Pro se relator)

Best Buy Company, Eden Prairie Location, c/o The Frick Co., P.O. Box 283, St. Louis, MO 63166 (Pro se respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge,

and Holtan, Judge.**

Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals 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

 TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Relator William C. Crezee seeks certiorari review of the commissioner's representative's decisions denying his claim for reemployment insurance benefits. The commissioner's representative found that Crezee falsified his installation time record in order to increase his hourly pay and that Crezee was properly discharged from employment for misconduct disqualifying him from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Because there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain the commissioner's representative's decision, we affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

This court reviews the decision of the commissioner's representative rather than that of the reemployment insurance judge. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1994). The commissioner's representative's findings should be reviewed 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 those findings. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp, Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). Whether an employee's action constituted misconduct is a question of law, this court reviews de novo. McKee v. Cub Food, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. App. 1986).

An individual who is discharged from a job for misconduct is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (1996). The supreme court has adopted the following definition of "misconduct:"

"[T]he intended meaning of the term `misconduct' * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer."

 In re Tilseth's Claim, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)).

The supreme court expanded its misconduct definition to include conduct by an employee demonstrating a lack of concern for his or her job. Feia v. St. Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564, 244 N.W.2d 635, 636 (1976). Even a single incident may constitute misconduct if it represents a sufficient enough disregard for the employer's expectations. Blau v. Masters Restaurant Associates, Inc., 345 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn. App. 1984). Failure to follow an employer's policies may constitute misconduct. See Gilkeson v. Industrial Parts & Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1986) (employee committed misconduct by engaging in pattern of failing to follow policies and procedures and ignoring directions and requests).

The employer has the burden to prove that an employee is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Lumpkin v. North Cent. Airlines, Inc., 296 Minn. 456, 459-60, 209 N.W.2d 397, 400 (1973). The employer must establish misconduct by the greater weight of the evidence. Id.

The record indicates that on September 25, 1996, Crezee spent 1 hour and 54 minutes installing a compac disc player in an automobile. When Crezee completed the invoice, however, he reported 1 hour and 16 minutes for the installation. According to Best Buy's bonus system, Crezee would have increased his hourly rate by reporting a shorter installation time. Crezee admits in his brief to this court that the time he spent on the actual installation was more than the time he reported on his time report.

An employer has a right to expect an employee to abide by reasonable instructions and request. Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn. App. 1985); McGowan v. Executive Express Trans. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 1988). An employee who intentionally falsifies a time record commits disqualifying employment misconduct. Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc., 378 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Minn. App. 1985); McKee v. Cub Foods, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. App. 1986).

Under the circumstances, because Crezee committed employment misconduct when he falsified his time record and was properly disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Crezee admits he knew the importance of, accurate time records.

We deny Crezee's motion to file a supplement to his brief because the supplement contains matters outside the record on appeal. See Plowmen v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977) (an appellate court does not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below).

  Affirmed; motion denied.