Kathryn Abfalter, Relator, vs. Komo Machine, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Kathryn Abfalter, Relator, vs. Komo Machine, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A06-238, Court of Appeals Unpublished, October 31, 2006.

This opinion will be unpublished and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

A06-238

 

Kathryn Abfalter,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Komo Machine,

Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

Filed October 31, 2006

Affirmed

Toussaint, Chief Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 16142 05

 

Kathryn M. Abfalter, 12535 Hillside Lane Southeast, Becker, MN 55308 (pro se relator)

 

Komo Machine, 11 Industrial Boulevard, Sauk Rapids, MN 55379 (respondent)

 

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

 

 

            Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Relator Kathryn Abfalter challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer.  Because the ULJ's findings, inferences, conclusion, and decision are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. 

FACTS

Relator worked as a shipping and receiving clerk for respondent Komo Machine from June 13, 2005, until September 23, 2005, when she quit her employment.  On September 21, respondent's human resources manager called relator into her office to discuss relator's recent work injury and to address attendance issues.  Relator had been absent from work a number of times due to personal reasons.  The human resources manager expressed concern about possible future absences and referred relator to the employee assistance program.  According to relator, the human resources manager told her that she could quit and reapply once she took care of her personal problems, or she would be fired.  The human resources manager said she told relator that, if relator missed any more time from work, "she would face disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal."  On September 23, relator did not come to work and informed the human resources manager that she had decided to quit. 

The ULJ determined that relator quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer and was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits.  Relator requested reconsideration of the decision, and the ULJ summarily affirmed.[1] 

D E C I S I O N

An employee who quits employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the employee "quit the employment because of a good reason caused by the employer."  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 2005).  Whether an employee has good cause to quit is a question of law reviewed de novo.  Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000). 

            Relator argues that her decision to quit was not voluntary because she would have been fired eventually.  But an employee who leaves employment rather than facing termination or disciplinary action voluntarily quits without good reason caused by the employer.  Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control Comm'n, 340 N.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Minn. App. 1983).  Further, the unemployment benefits statute explicitly states:  "Notification of discharge in the future . . . shall not be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(e) (2004). 

The record shows that the human resources manager referred relator to the employee assistance program.  Further, relator testified that she believed she would be fired only if she had further absences.  Relator's decision to quit in order to avoid being fired is not a good reason caused by the employer.  

Relator also argues that the threat of future discharge was not her only reason for quitting and urges this court to consider several other reasons why she quit her employment.  On certiorari review, we review the ULJ's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record and if it is a correct application of the law.  See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005).  We defer to the credibility determinations made by the agency's factfinder.  Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook, 695 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. App. 2005). 

During the telephone hearing, the ULJ and relator had the following exchange about her reasons for quitting:

Q         Ms. Abfalter . . . summarize for me your reason or reasons for quitting.

 

A         With the options I was given to I did not really have any options. The writing was basically on the wall for me.

 

Q         So you felt you were going to be discharged in the future is that what you think.

 

A         Yes. I was told either . . .

 

Q         We're gonna get into that . . . but you quit because you thought you were gonna be discharged at some point in the future.

 

A         Yes.

 

Q         Any other reason for your quitting.

 

A         Nope.

 

Later in the hearing, relator testified that the only issue that caused her to quit was the meeting she had with the human resources manager in which she gave relator the choice of quitting or getting fired.  Despite relator's contention that she had several other reasons for quitting, the record supports the ULJ's determination that she quit in order to avoid future discharge and not for some other reason.

Relator nonetheless suggests her reason for quitting was medically necessary, because the working conditions were unsafe and because the employer refused to accommodate her disability.  Although relator made references to her recent work injury at the hearing, she never told the ULJ that it was necessary for her to quit in order to avoid further injury.  And, although she made a reference to "faulty equipment" at work, relator admitted to the ULJ that it was not a reason for her quitting.  In fact, relator provided no evidence at the hearing that it was medically necessary for her to leave her employment. 

Relator claims there were other factors which caused her to quit as well.  She claims her employer did not give her proper guidance or communication while she was in training.  She also claims she was harassed by coworkers for reporting an injury, which caused the employee bingo jackpot to be reduced from $250 to $25.  Whether or not these factored into relator's decision to quit was a factual determination for the ULJ, and the ULJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Finally, the record does not support relator's argument that the ULJ denied her a fair opportunity at the hearing to fully explain her reasons for quitting her employment.  The rules governing the conduct of hearings in unemployment compensation cases provide that the ULJ "shall exercise control over the hearing procedure in a manner that protects the parties' rights to a fair hearing" and "shall ensure that relevant facts are clearly and fully developed." Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2005).  The ULJ "should assist unrepresented parties in the presentation of evidence." Id. But the ULJ "may exclude any evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly repetitious." Minn. R. 3310.2292. 

The transcript of the hearing shows that the ULJ gave relator several opportunities to explain her reasons for quitting, yet she indicated that she had nothing further to say.  For instance, at the close of her testimony when the ULJ asked relator if there was anything she wanted to add regarding her reasons for quitting that had not been covered, she replied, "No."  And the ULJ again gave both parties an opportunity to speak at the close of the hearing, and relator said nothing.  

Though relator refers to instances during the hearing where she was cut off by the ULJ, a close reading of the transcript shows that, in these instances, the ULJ was excluding irrelevant and repetitious testimony and ensuring that the evidence was presented in an organized fashion.

            Affirmed.

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

[1] Relator requested review of the ULJ's decision under the former procedure in which a senior unemployment review judge would conduct de novo review of a ULJ's decision following a request for consideration. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2 (2004).  The legislature recently amended this procedure.  Now, following a request for reconsideration, the ULJ who conducted the evidentiary hearing also reconsiders that decision.  Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a) (Supp. 2005).