Jerry Hal Saliterman, Respondent, vs. Milavetz & Associates, P.A., Relator, 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

 C4-97-2133

Jerry Hal Saliterman,

Respondent,

vs.

Milavetz & Associates, P.A.,

Relator,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 Filed May 19, 1998

 Affirmed

 Foley, Judge*

Minnesota Department of Economic Security

File No. 5631 UC 97

Phillip S. Resnick, Scott J. Seiler, Resnick & Seiler, P.L.L.P., 1925 Rand Tower, 527 Marquette Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for relator)

Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent commissioner)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Foley, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.**

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

**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

 FOLEY, Judge

Relator seeks review of the commissioner's representative's decision, challenging several findings of fact. Because relator has failed to provide this court with a transcript, we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Respondent Jerry Hal Saliterman worked for relator Milavetz & Associates, a law firm, for several years. When he was hired, respondent had six felony convictions, of which relator was aware.

In January 1995, respondent was arrested for shoplifting and possession of shoplifting gear. He pleaded guilty to felony possession of shoplifting gear, received a stayed sentence, and continued working for relator.

In 1997, relator was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving respondent's service of legal papers. Respondent's criminal record was reviewed, and he was discharged.

An employee who is discharged for misconduct is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (1996). Whether an employee has committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). As an appellate court, our function is to review the record to determine whether there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain the decision of the commissioner's representative. See Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).

Relator argues that several of the findings of the commissioner's representative are unsupported by the record. However, relator has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing. An appellant has the burden of producing a record that is sufficient to review challenged findings of fact. See Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency v. Mark Lee Prods., Inc., 411 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Minn. App. 1987). When an appellant fails to provide a transcript, we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence. Id.

Relator has failed to support its arguments on appeal by providing a complete record for our review; therefore, we are unable to determine whether the commissioner's representative's findings are unsupported by the record as a whole.

We note that relator's motion to supplement the record was addressed in a prior order by this court, dated March 20, 1998.

  Affirmed.