*1 proving gation” of that is a cause employee has the burden attributable to the em- leaving good ployer, for cause I concur in the her reasons for are result. employer. 52-
attributable to her Section 06-02(1), provided no N.D.C.C. Sonterre MESCHKE, J., concurs. was an insuffi- evidence that two weeks which to find a cient amount of time within not her
baby-sitter, thus she did meet bur- Sonterre, instead,
den. submitted her res-
ignation receiving within 24 hours of part lack of effort on the of
notice. This
Sonterre, along with the fact that United
Hospital gave two-week’s notice when its
policy guidelines only required one-week
notice, support is sufficient to the Bureau’s OLSON, Appellant, Sandra given of time conclusion that amount to. adjust to her new Sonterre shift was not provide good as to cause so short attributa- JOB SERVICE NORTH DAKOTA quitting job. to her her ble Wylie Corp., Appellees. E.W. Finally, the Bureau’s failure to con Civ. No. 10966. clude that Sonterre been demoted is had Supreme Court of North Dakota. sufficiently supported by the evidence. pay unchanged was and she
Sonterre’s Dec. being assigned not work that was different already doing. from what she had been simply required
Her new schedule her to do enjoy
more of the work she did not and less enjoy.
of the she work did findings sup-
As the of the Bureau are evidence, by preponderance a
ported supported by
as the conclusions of are law fact, findings and as the decision of supported by is
the Bureau its conclusions law, we reverse the decision of the dis-
trict court and reinstate the decision of the
Bureau. GIERKE, JJ.,
VANDE WALLE and con-
cur.
LEVINE, (concurring specially). Justice agree
I concur the result because I good
that did not faith Sonterre establish
effort to find child care. Nor did she show
that two weeks’ time was an unreasonable
period child for her to find suitable care. parent’s
I do not all cases a
need to find suitable child care constitutes among personal convenience. It ranks this
other necessities. Since case does leaving
rise or fall on the issue of whether “parental because of a obli-
286 job.
and off the Sandra has said she does entering not agreement. recall into such an During evening May 15, 1984, of approximately Sandra drank two beers. Some two hours later she decided to drive reaching Jamestown. Before James- town, apparently asleep she fell and her car went into the ditch. police The officer who assisted at the scene of the accident issued required a citation for operating “care vehicle”. being
After treated and released at the Hospital, Jamestown she went to visit a friend, nursing who was the director of at Hospital. Jamestown State Sandra was treated at the Hospi- Jamestown State tal problems, for emotional unrelated to the alcohol, consumption 17, May of on 16 and 1984. hospital
The Wylie staff informed 16, Sandra May would not be at work on 1984. Sandra later Wylie notified she 1984, May 17, be at work on because hospitalized. she was still She was released from hospital on 17, May 1984. Fargo She then returned to representatives and met with Wylie. of Later, 17, 1984, May on she was fired. Sandra filed a unemployment claim for benefits with Job Service North Dakota but 6, 1984, her claim was denied. On June Job Service notified Sandra she was dis- Baker, Alan argued, of Kirschner & Bak- qualified receiving from benefits because Legal Clinic, Fargo, er appellant. for discharged she had been for misconduct. Sidney Fiergola, argued Hertz and Mi- Upon appeal of this determination an ad- Wilma, Gen., chael J. Attys. Asst. Bis- hearing 20, July ministrative was held on marck, appellees. 27, 1984, July 1984. appeals On ref- granting eree issued a job decision Sandra GIERKE, Justice. 20, May insurance benefits effective 1984. appeal This is an by Sandra Olson from Wylie requested granted then and was bu- an order of the District Court of Cass reau review. Job Service bureau re- County which affirmed a decision Job view ap- reversed the referee’s decision on Service North disqualifying Dakota peal, finding Sandra ground misconduct to be the receiving from unemployment benefits. for denial.
We reverse and remand. next Sandra’s level of was the
Sandra Olson was hired as a salaried district court. The district court issued employee by law, Wylie Corporation findings fact, the E.W. of conclusions of 7,May that, 11, 1985, on Wylie alleges at the order for on March hiring, agreed time of Sandra to refrain which it affirmed the decision of Ser- Job alcohol, consumption from the of both on vice and concluded Sandra Olson should not Judgment unemployment Com’r, receive benefits. v. North Dakota Highway State 11, 1985, 739, April (N.D.1980). 291 N.W.2d was entered on and notice together entry judgment, with an primary issue on is whether mailing, affidavit of was filed the Dis- or not justified Job Service was in denying County April trict Court of Cass on benefits to Sandra because her conduct. *3 appeal 1985. Sandra Olson filed a notice of A disqualified worker is from re 19, 1985, ap- April provided on which the ceiving only benefits after he has been peal was from “the Order of the Cass “discharged for misconduct in connection 19, County February District Court ... on employment”. 52-06-02(2), with his last § 1985”. may N.D.C.C. Misconduct justify which right appeal The in this state is statu- discharge may justify a denial of bene tory jurisdictional and is a matter which we fits under our unemployment compensation may sponte. consider sua Union State laws. The term “misconduct” is not de Miller, (N.D.1984). 222 Bank v. 358 N.W.2d in fined North Dakota unemployment com pensation In adopted law. Perske we have statutory The authorization for an the widely accepted definition of “miscon
appeal to this court
the
in
when
matter
originally
duct” as
Boynton
enunciated in
volves an administrative decision is
28-
§
Neubeck,
249,
Cab Co. v.
237 Wis.
296
Century
32-21 of the North Dakota
Code.
636,
(1941).
N.W.
640
Perske v. Job Ser
appeal pro
In this instance the notice of
Dakota,
(N.D.
vice North
Job Service of
gence
degree
of such
or recurrence as to
(N.D.1983).
362
At this time and in the
wrongful
equal culpability,
manifest
in-
future,
appeal
we will consider an
to be
design,
tent or evil
or to
an inten-
show
properly
appeal
before this court when the
disregard of
tional and substantial
the
an
is from “order” and the record includes
employer’s
employee’s
interests or of the
“judgment”
which is consistent with the
obligations
employer.
duties and
to his
in
order. We have determined that
the
inefficiency,
On the other hand mere
un-
justice
prudenjt change
interest of
this is a
conduct,
good per-
in
satisfactory
failure
which,
preserve
appeals
will
those
which
inability
formance as the result of
or
by
appellant,
for an error
the
but
incapacity,
ordinary
inadvertencies or
have been reviewed on their merits.
instances,
good
negligence in isolated
or
Therefore,
prop
the
is
instant
now
judgment
faith
or discretion are
errors
erly
this court.
before
not to be deemed ‘misconduct’within the
meaning
Boynton,
of the statute.”
su-
The standard of review on
from
Perske, supra,
pra
that State benefits.
A review of the evidence reveals that
under such a standard of the find- review
ings of Job Service cannot be set aside.
Furthermore, the conclusion of Job Service agreement Olson’s violation of such meaning
was “misconduct” within the 52-06-02(2), N.D.C.C.,
Section and our deci-
sion in Perske v. Job Service North Dako-
ta,
(N.D.1983),
Under the decision of the who, convictions,
ers because of their re-
quire principles adherence to which do not rights
violate the constitutional of the em-
ployee employment, as a condition of are
helpless protect They those convictions.
may employee pay terminate the but will price for those convictions via increased *5 Twomey (argued), James F. Asst. State’s unemployment compen- contributions to the Atty., Fargo, plaintiff appellee. and guise sation fund under the that the em- ployee misconduct does not a “reason- bear Richard Henry Eslinger L. Nelson and able inter- (argued), Forks, Grand for defendant and ests.” appellant.
I affirm the the dis- MESCHKE, affirming trict court Justice. the decision of Job Service. charges Keith Fuller seeks a new trial on
for burglary property and theft of because judge the trial specifically did not articulate in the record each factor considered al- lowing prior evidence of convictions for impeachment purposes. We affirm the conviction. Property money and stolen from the Dakota, of North
STATE Plaintiff premises Fargo of a real estate office in Appellee, and nearby were found in a hotel room. later Ladwig, The room rented Gerald who consented to the search in Fuller’s FULLER, L. Keith Defendant presence. Appellant. Ladwig pleaded guilty and testified for No. Cr. 1065. testimony the State. His conflicted with examination, Supreme Court of North Dakota. Fuller’s account. On direct Ladwig prior admitted his criminal convic- Dec. tions. objected when the
Fuller’s counsel questioned Fuller on cross- attorney State’s concerning prior Fuller’s con- examination victions. The trial court then conducted record, jury’s hearing on the out of the admissibility presence, to determine