Cathy L. Poppler, Relator, vs. Dolphin Clerical, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C0-98-1488

Cathy L. Poppler,
Relator,

vs.

Dolphin Clerical,
Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,
Respondent.

Filed February 9, 1999
Affirmed
Crippen, Judge

Department of Economic Security
File No. 3267 UC 98

Cathy L. Poppler, 11004 Oregon Curve, Bloomington, MN 55438 (pro se appellant)

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

Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

CRIPPEN, Judge

This appeal arises on the determination of the commissioner's representative that relator failed without good cause to accept an offer of suitable employment and thus was disqualified from reemployment insurance benefits until she earned benefits in new employment. Because relator has failed to identify a basis for correcting the decision, we affirm.

FACTS

Immediately prior to events on April 2, 1998, relator qualified for reemployment insurance benefits under her temporary job placements by Dolphin Clerical. The commissioner's representative determined that relator became disqualified on April 2 when she refused a long-term assignment that was to begin on April 6. It is undisputed that relator offered to begin the position on April 9, that she had notified the temporary agency a month earlier of vacation plans for April 6-8, and that the agency had not objected to the vacation plans. Except for its effect on her vacation plans, relator does not dispute that the April 2 offer was for a suitable placement.

D E C I S I O N

1.

In her brief, relator contends that the commissioner erred in failing to find that relator completed a job assignment through April 3, 1998 and that she had pre-arranged to take a vacation from April 6 to April 8, 1998. The commissioner's findings adequately acknowledge the occurrence of relator's vacation plans; relator's real dispute regards the commissioner's suggestion that the plans did not constitute good cause for turning down the offer of employment.

2.

In the interests of justice, we have examined the representative's legal conclusions and find no error. On the sparse record before the commissioner's representative, it was lawful to determine that relator failed to show good cause for turning down what was in fact a valuable employment offer.

We find no precedent for the proposition that a mere three-day vacation plan, without other special circumstances, is good cause for refusing a valuable offer of employment. In fact, relator herself suggests that she would have foregone the vacation had she known that the offered position was long term.

3.

Responding to relator's contention that she would have taken the offered job if she had known that it was long-term, the commissioner's representative stated that relator "did not inquire of the employer of the details of the assignment." In her statement of the case, relator alleges that the commissioner erred in failing to find that relator asked the agency whether the offered position was long-term.

Relator's argument is flawed because it is based on facts not of record. Although she claims on appeal that she inquired about the length of the employment and that a staff person was unable to give her this information, these facts were not in the record before the commissioner. Evidence that was not received in administrative proceedings below cannot be reviewed as part of the record on appeal. Appelhof v. Commissioner of Jobs and Training, 450 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Minn. App. 1990). On the sparse record available, the commissioner did not err in determining fault on the part of relator for having failed to accept a valuable, long-term job.(1)

Affirmed.

1. Although we find no error, the fault for an incomplete record cannot be placed with relator alone. Although relator, who appeared pro se, repeatedly said to the reemployment insurance judge that she was not told the position was long-term, no inquiry was ever made, at any stage of the case, to determine whether the circumstances were such that she should have known, as a matter of fact, whether the position was long-term.