*1 Corey COOK, Respondent, P.
PLAYWORKS, Relator,
Commissioner
Security, Respondent.
No. C8-95-1207. Appeals
Court of of Minnesota.
Jan. *2 Cook,
Corey Shakopee, P. Pro Se. Duncan, Mary A. Elizabeth Hen- Richard Benson, Faegre Min- dricks-Schmiesing, & neapolis, for relator. Todd, Department
Kent E. Paul, Sec., respondent. St. CRIPPEN, by and decided Considered DAVIES, P.J., and JJ. and KALITOWSKI OPINION CRIPPEN, Judge. representative found
The Commissioner’s respondent Corey Cook his Playworks, good cause to relator employer, qualifying respondent his thus pursu- reemployment compensation benefits (1994). § 268.09 Relator ant to Minn.Stat. that this errone- contends disregards findings ously evidence respondent, quit due to a demotion who cut, accompanying pay given and an inability job assignment of his new posi- adequately previous in his perform remand, concluding tion. We reverse representative ap- the Commissioner’s unduly standard to decide plied an narrow question cause.
FACTS relator, a full-time for Respondent worked family entertainment cen- large childcare and 6,1994, ter, September through Decem- voluntarily quit his he ber when employment. originally hired as
Relator yearly salary of manager at a entertainment $27,040. Approximately two after weeks posi- hiring, respondent was demoted to a substantial reduction in the coordinator, pay? with a tion of entertainment $24,576,
yearly salary of inade- quate job performance. As entertainment ANALYSIS *3 coordinator, respondent again to com- failed question The of whether an em plete many assigned job his of duties. Re- ployee voluntarily employment terminated spondent counseled on occasions was various good employer with cause to an attributable job concerning performance; deficient he his question independent a of is law that be expressed improve work and a desire to his Menard, Inc., ly reviewed. Wood v. 490 employment during portion the latter of his 441, Similarly, 443 (Minn.App.1992). N.W.2d training in at the enrolled several courses findings support the whether Commissioner’s job suggestion Respondent’s per- of relator. question a determination of is a misconduct in improved formance some areas but re- subject Cherry of law to de novo review. v. in mained deficient others. Relator conclud- Ins., 475, Nat’l. American 426 N.W.2d 477 per- respondent capable ed that was not of (Minn.App.1988). management forming position a of because reemployment system The insurance his lack of and motivation. skills is intended to benefit who individuals become that respondent Relator then advised he unemployed through of “no fault their own.” position would be to the assistant demoted of (1994). § Reemployment 268.03 Minn.Stat. $17,304. yearly salary teacher at a of When insurance statutes are remedial and must be respondent expressed concern about low- interpreted liberally awarding in favor of pay, respondent er advised that relator he Co., Employers’ Smith v. benefits. Overload possibly position could return to the of enter- (Minn.1981). 220, 314 N.W.2d 221-22 A if in tainment coordinator he enrolled suffi- disqualified claimant is in job improved cient courses and education voluntarily surance benefits if the claimant performance. Respondent was also advised employment good terminates without cause that a he could obtain as a lead teacher employer attributable to the or if the claim by earning several additional educational discharged ant is for misconduct. Minn.Stat. 1994, 30, respondent credits. December On 268.09, (b) (1994). 1(a), § subd. parties The quit. agree respondent’s termination from re Respondent sought reemployment insur- voluntary. lator was Depart- ance from the benefits Minnesota quit “Good cause” has to been defined Security. Reversing ment of a “real, imaginary, as a reason that is not record, department judge after review of the reasonable, trifling, not substantial not representative the Commissioner’s held that whimsical; compulsion there must be some disqualified from receiv- by produced extraneous and necessitous cir benefits, ing reemployment insurance Ferguson Department cumstances.” v. of respondent voluntarily discontinued em- Serv., 34, 5, Employment 311 Minn. 44 n. 247 ployment good with cause to re- 895, (1976). 900 n. N.W.2d 5 The standard is lator substantial in reductions applied average “reasonableness as to the pay. woman, supersensitive man or and not to the I(j[/ n n n ^
ISSUE employee Where an is on A wages demoted based a in substantial reduction credible, skills to may provide employee good assessment found is the an with cause to Inc., employee’s quit quit.1 Ctr., to choice reasonable because v. Scott Photo 306 Minn. Further, employee may good pay employee's personnel have cause to due violation employee policy regarding relationships if a demotes the romantic consti- position requires substantially good quitting); skill. See less tuted cause for Holbrook v. 773, Art, 537, Marty Digital Equip. Corp., 345 N.W.2d Museum N.W.2d Minnesota 405 539 (Minn.1984) (demotion (Minn. 15, (Minn.App.1987), July 775 to inferior review denied 1987) opportunities (reassignment with limited advancement of assistant curator to sub- 5). (1975) (25 900, n. In the immediate at 235 N.W.2d Dachel, case, rep- resulting from unlike the Commissioner’s wages in percent reduction respon- salary estab found from fixed resentative to commission switch yearly salary from a quitting); pay McBride v. was reduced good cause for dent’s lished $17,304 in LeVasseur, (Minn.App $27,040 yearly salary of to a 341 N.W.2d .1983)(30 resulting months, percent decrease and percent reduction four a 36 monthly hourly pay percent rate from than 21-26 change greater reduction quitting). salary good cause Foods. Sunstar established set Sunstar standard Foods, Uhlendorf, Nevertheless, the Foods, Inc. v. be- In Sunstar N.W.2d at 84. a deter Supreme justi- Court affirmed changes Minnesota to be were shown cause these wages skills, that a unilateral reduction mination *4 on the basis of the fied unreasonable, justifying percent quit 21-26 of of cause to that presents the issue ease compensation unemployment of payment the in Dachel. was addressed packing plant em striking to meat benefits re an even more Relator calls for Foods, 80, 310 85 ployees. N.W.2d Sunstar it is approach, a determination strictive (Minn.1981). support “gen These cases the unjustified to necessarily unreasonable and pay reduction rule that a substantial eral employer has quit employment where the quitting.” employee good cause for gives an an honest assess a demotion based on made Scott, 536, at 617. Minn. at 235 N.W.2d 306 job Relator de person’s ment of a skills. with preceding authorities deal The by pointing undisputed to position fends its cut, not with a employer’s unilateral an pro in that it showed unusual restraint facts accompanying salary an reduc demotion and attempting job and to tecting respondent’s unsatisfactory job performance. In tion for positions. We con place appropriate him in voluntary termination determining whether a nor Dachel that neither Sunstar Foods clude cause, reasonableness good for the relative is governs a bright line rule that provides a Holbrook v. employer the is not relevant. in kind. A severe decrease case of this Art, 405 N.W.2d Minnesota Museum quit when may justify a choice to wages employee may (Minn.App.1987). But the 540 after employer has made a demotion the justifiable a good cause to refuse not have skills, it assessing employee’s but honestly an the latter This court discussed demotion. employee’s choice to that an does not follow Met, Inc., which in Dachel v. Ortho situation every of this case quit is unreasonable pay cut employee who incurred a involved an kind. of a approximately percent the must determine The Commissioner employer’s dissatis based on the demotion employee’s action con- of an reasonableness employee’s quality of the faction with the which in- circumstances sidering all relevant Dachel, 268, 270-71 528 N.W.2d work. change the wages, the extent of clude loss of the em (Minn.App.1995). We did not find duties, expectan- job the reasonable career enough under pay cut substantial ployee’s of tenure with employee because cies of the justify payment of Foods to the Sunstar employee’s employers, and the this or other at 270. compensation. Id. after the remaining for advancement chances employee good lacks held that an But we also demotion.2 average, reasonable quit to when “the cause rigid a con choice, Finally, we note that a similar faced with person, when to an factors attributable for causative employed.” Id. cern chosen to remain would have Minn, assess- employee, independent of a broader Ferguson, 311 at n. (citing at argues that the reasonable- job involving duties 2. The Commissioner stantially clerical different good deter- funding employer’s should not limitations established of an because of ness acknowledge choosing a quitting). employee good We cause for change cause of the mine the good however, cause circumstances quit. proposition, does not That to however, cases; quitting the circum- in some for employer’s problem unique of an the extend to those are distinct from stances in this instance skills, subject employee's the an assessment of employee was de- the here cited above because this case. of Dachel and matter inadequate job performance. moted for employee’s quitting, appears of an employer ment cause is the him have treated only appropriate an sympathetically throughout where behav- employment. the Nonetheless, second-guess ior rises to the level I am unwilling of misconduct. See Services, Inc., Goodwin BPS Guard 524 Cook—and the at commissioner —to arrive (Minn.App.1994) (holding that conclusion. quits employment good employee without percent pay, After a reduction in employer attributable to the when the cause voluntary here a mat- should be held as employee demotes the instead of ter of law have been with misconduct). firing employee The employer. to the To rule other- case, is not so issue limited in this requires department expen- wise to make represen- we concur with the Commissioner’s inquiries beyond judgments sive subtle respondent tative’s was not de- capacity certainly its and resources —and be- moted misconduct.3 yond capacity of this court.
DECISION experienced
Where Cook and accompanying pay demotion cut due to
inadequate performance, the Commis representative by concluding
sioner’s erred had with considering bearing
out other circumstances respondent’s decrease, on demotion and Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of expectancies such as his reasonable career remaining opportunities for advance ment. We remand for a redetermination of MARIN, Appellant. Flores Franco the case consistent with the standard an opinion. nounced this No. C2-95-277. Reversed and remanded. Appeals Court of of Minnesota. DAVIES, Judge, (dissenting). Jan. 1996. respectfully I Respondent dissent. Cook Denied Review Feb. 1996. reduced, salary was demoted and his $27,040 steps, $17,304, from two a reduc- percent. A mag-
tion of of this demotion treated,
nitude should in almost all cases be law, justification
as a matter of as for a
voluntary quit, employee ought and the disqualified benefits.
Any opens other result the door demotion, discharge— rather than
conduct—
that would make administration the reem- system
ployment impossibly difficult. agree
I that Cook been have ill-ad- leaving might
vised we abilities,
think matched his especially when representative inability incapacity, The Commissioner’s cited evi- the result or inadverten- respondent’s wage dence ductions were a result of re- demotions ordinary negligence cies or in isolated instances * * poor performance work Co., Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber willful, and lack of skill rather than intentional 372, 375, (1973) Minn. misconduct. The definition of “misconduct” specifically Neubeck, (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. 237 Wis. inefficiency, excludes "mere unsatis- 249, 259, (1941)). 296 N.W. conduct, factory good performance failure in as