Annemarie Carroll, Relator, vs. Grand Casino Mille Lacs, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1998).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C2-98-1685

Annemarie Carroll,

Relator,

vs.

Grand Casino Mille Lacs,

Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 Filed February 23, 1999

 Affirmed

 Lansing, Judge

Department of Economic Security

Agency File No. 4575UC98

Annemarie Carroll, 39218 Highway 27, Hillman, MN 56338 (pro se relator)

Grand Casino Mille Lacs, 777 Grand Avenue, HCR 67, Box 240, Onamia, MN 56359 (pro se respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 LANSING, Judge

Annemarie Carroll appeals an order of the Commissioner of Economic Security disqualifying her from receiving reemployment benefits. The evidence reasonably tends to support the decision of the commissioner's representative that Carroll quit her job without a good reason attributable to her employer, and we affirm.

 FACTS

Grand Casino Mille Lacs Hotel employed Annemarie Carroll as a room attendant from May 1996 until May 1998. On May 11, 1998, Carroll told her supervisor that she had been assigned duties that other employees were not required to perform. Carroll and her supervisor met with the manager, who told Carroll to perform the duties. Rather than perform the duties, Carroll quit because she "refused to do any more extra work" that she believed other employees were not required to do.

Carroll applied for reemployment insurance benefits, but her claim was denied and her appeals to a reemployment insurance judge and the commissioner's representative were unsuccessful. Carroll appeals the decision of the commissioner's representative that she quit without good reason attributable to Grand Casino Mille Lacs Hotel.

 D E C I S I O N

An employee who voluntarily quits without good reason attributable to the employer is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1a(1) (Supp. 1997) (changing statute's language from "good cause" to "good reason"). A good reason attributable to the employer is a reason for which the employer is responsible that is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit. Id., subd. 9(a)(1), (2) (Supp. 1997). Good reason is a legal conclusion, but it must be based on findings that have the requisite evidentiary support. Zepp v. Arthur Treacher Fish & Chips, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn. 1978) (discussing good cause).

Carroll contends that the commissioner's representative erred in concluding she quit without good reason. She maintains that she had good reason to quit because her supervisor assigned her duties that were not part of her position, that other employees in her position did not perform, and that she could not accomplish during her work shift. See Shanahan v. District Mem'l Hosp., 495 N.W.2d 894, 897 (Minn. App. 1993) (employer's excessive demands are good cause for quitting).

The commissioner's representative found that Carroll was classified as a "room attendant," which was a parallel position to "house person," paying the same wage and with the same overall cleaning responsibilities. The representative further found that although the job responsibilities within these positions were not identical, Carroll was asked to perform duties that were within her general job description. The extra duties that Carroll complained about were recycling responsibilities and stocking two carts. The representative found that these distinctions between the job categories were not so significant that it would compel an average, reasonable employee to quit.

The representative's factual findings are supported by the record. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995) (findings of commissioner's representative entitled to high degree of deference). Carroll testified that she had been told that she might have to perform duties beyond those listed in the job description and also testified that she did not tell her supervisor that her workload was greater than her available time. Both Carroll's supervisor and the manager confirmed Carroll's testimony that she had not complained about the difficulty of completing her work assignments. The record does not demonstrate that the claimed variation in duties, recycling and loading two carts, was so significant that it would justify quitting. See Marz v. Department of Employment Servs., 256 N.W.2d 287, 289 (Minn. 1977) (burden is on employee to demonstrate good cause justifying quitting employment).

Carroll's assertion that the hotel employees made false statements during their testimony to the reemployment insurance judge was not raised in the appeal to the representative, and thus that issue is not a proper issue on appeal. See Bestler v. Travel Co., 398 N.W.2d 611, 614 n.2 (Minn. App. 1986). The commissioner's representative did not err in concluding that Carroll quit employment without good reason attributable to her employer.

  Affirmed.