Mark A. Krmpotich, Relator, vs. Ultimate Electronics, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Mark A. Krmpotich, Relator, vs. Ultimate Electronics, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A05-1720, Court of Appeals Unpublished, July 11, 2006.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-1720

 

Mark A. Krmpotich,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Ultimate Electronics, Inc.,

Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

Filed July 11, 2006

Affirmed

Shumaker, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 9224 05

 

 

Mark A. Krmpotich, 509 16th Avenue West, Eveleth, MN 55734 (pro se relator)

 

Ultimate Electronics, Inc., Edina Location, c/o Employers Unity, Inc., P.O. Box 749000, Arvada, CO 80006-9000 (respondent employer)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent department)

 

 

 

            Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Ross,

Judge.

 

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

SHUMAKER, Judge

Relator challenges his disqualification from unemployment benefits, arguing that he quit his job for good reason attributable to his employer.  Because the evidence supports the unemployment-law judge's determination, we affirm.

FACTS

During his employment with Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (UE) from January 10, 1995, to May 13, 2005, relator Mark Krmpotich was promoted several times, and for the last five years of his employment he worked full time as a general manager in the Twin Cities with an annual salary of $82,500.  In January 2005, UE filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was forced to reorganize and eliminate 30 of its 62 stores.  The store at which Krmpotich worked was not on the list to be eliminated.  There was considerable turnover in the management above Krmpotich's level, and he was informed that bonuses would be eliminated but could be reinstated later.  Although Krmpotich was not told that his job would be eliminated or that he would be laid off, he feared that he would lose his job and be unable to afford his home in Shakopee. 

While UE was undergoing changes, Krmpotich's wife was offered an opportunity to transfer with her company to the Gilbert area in northern Minnesota.  Krmpotich testified that having his wife accept the position in Gilbert and moving the family there "was the best thing to do since [his] job didn't have security."  After Krmpotich decided he "had no future" with UE, he testified that he quit his job and that he and his wife sold their home and moved to northern Minnesota where the cost of living was "considerably cheaper."

In July 2005, an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) found Krmpotich had quit "[b]ecause of the future uncertainty of his job" and because his wife had accepted a job offer in northern Minnesota.  The ULJ determined he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by his employer.  Krmpotich's motion for reconsideration was denied.

D E C I S I O N

The sole issue on appeal is whether the ULJ erred in determining that Krmpotich quit his job without good reason attributable to his employer.  Krmpotich contends he should be granted unemployment benefits because his employer created circumstances that threatened the security of his job.  He argues that, although his wife's opportunity to transfer to northern Minnesota affected his decision, the elimination of bonuses, the restructuring of the company, and lack of promotion possibilities reasonably led him to believe that he would lose his job.

The reason Krmpotich quit his employment raises a credibility issue that was determined by the ULJ.  This court defers to the ULJ's determinations regarding witness credibility and conflicting evidence.  Jenson v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 617 N.W.2d 627, 631 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2000).  When reviewing a decision on unemployment benefits, we apply a narrow standard of review.  Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382, 383 (Minn. 1992).  But whether an employee had good cause to quit is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.  Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000). 

An employee who quits his employment is disqualified from all unemployment benefits unless he did so for a good reason caused by the employer.  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2004).  A good reason caused by the employer is a reason "(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment."  Id., subd. 3(a) (2004).  This definition must be applied to the specific facts of each case.  Id., subd. 3(b) (2004).  If an employee is subject to adverse working conditions, the employee must complain of the conditions to the employer, and allow reasonable opportunity for the conditions to be corrected, before the conditions may be considered a good reason for quitting caused by the employer.  Id., subd. 3(c) (2004).  Additionally, "[n]otification of discharge in the future, including a layoff due to lack of work, shall not be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting."  Id.,subd. 3(e) (2004). 

Krmpotich does not contend that UE told him directly or indirectly that his job would be eliminated or that he would be laid off.  His concern was a subjective fear that he might be terminated.  He admitted that the possibility of losing his job was one consideration in his decision to quit, but that his wife's transfer and the prospect of a lower cost of living were also factors in his decision.

On appeal, we are not entitled to reweigh the evidence.  Jenson, 617 N.W.2d at 631.  The ULJ did not find Krmpotich's contention that he quit his job because of insecurity created by UE to be credible.  But even if the ULJ had accepted Krmpotich's explanation as credible, that reason still does not satisfy the legal standard of a good reason caused by the employer.  See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(e).

            Affirmed.