Loftis v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc.

297 N.W.2d 237, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1447
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 20, 1980·No. 48056·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

TODD, Justice.

The Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc., annually conducts a training program for school patrol officers during an 11-week period each summer. June Loftis was hired to work as a cook for the Legionville School Safety Patrol Center from June 6, 1976, until August 21, 1976. At the time she was hired, she knew that the employment was for only 11 weeks. Upon her termination, she filed for unemployment benefits, which were allowed by the Department of Economic Security and charged to the Legionville School. Upon appeal by the school, the department’s decision was affirmed by the appeal tribunal and by the Commissioner of Economic Development. The employer then appealed to this court, contending that by accepting employment of a limited and definite duration an employee became disqualified from unemployment benefits under the so-called “constructive voluntary quit rule.”

*238 The Minnesota Legislature has declared as its policy that “unemployment reserves * * * be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” Minn.Stat. § 268.03 (1978). Thus, an eligible claimant will be paid unemployment compensation unless some disqualification is proved, Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 Minn. 116, 125 N.W.2d 444 (1963), such as voluntarily discontinuing employment without good cause attributable to the employer. Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(1) (1978).

At the time this cause of action arose, “voluntary” was not defined by statute. 1 Its dictionary meanings include “produced in or by an act of choice; performed, made, or given of one’s own free will; * * done by design or intention; * * * not constrained, impelled, or influenced by another * * *Webster’s New Third Int’l Dictionary 2564 (1976). Over the years, however, we have judicially expanded the dictionary meaning of “voluntary” to disqualify otherwise eligible claimants under what has come to be called the “constructive voluntary quit rule.” Thus, separations from employment have been labeled “voluntary” when they result from the operation of seniority systems based on collective bargaining agreements, Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 93 N.W.2d 815 (1958); Stawikowski v. Collins Elec. Constr. Co., 289 N.W.2d 390 (Minn.1979), from vacation shutdowns, Jackson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 234 Minn. 52, 47 N.W.2d 449 (1951); Johnson v. LaGrange Shoe Corp., 244 Minn. 354, 70 N.W.2d 335 (1955), and from the operation of mandatory retirement systems pursuant either to a collective bargaining agreement, Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co., 252 Minn. 63, 89 N.W.2d 172 (1958), or to a policy imposed unilaterally by the employer, Stream v. Continental Machines, Inc., 261 Minn. 289, 111 N.W.2d 785 (1961).

Despite our tendency to expand the “constructive voluntary quit rule,” by the time this case reached us on appeal, only Anson and Stawikowski had not been overruled by legislative action, 2 and they too had fallen by the 1980 legislative session. 3 This legislative response to our past decisions, our recognition of the rule’s inequities, 4 and our *239 belief that disqualifying a person for having worked at a temporary position is contrary to the policies of the statute 5 all convince us that the “constructive voluntary quit rule” should not be extended to cover the facts of this case. Since the Commissioner of Economic Security has never applied this rule to temporary or seasonal employees, 6 our decision is consistent with the deference we give to the practical construction placed on a statute by those administrative officers charged with its enforcement. Chri stgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Ass’n, 208 Minn. 263, 293 N.W. 619 (1940).

Although we agree with the commissioner that June Loftis is unemployed through no fault of her own and is thus entitled to receipt of unemployment compensation, we are unable to determine whether the experience ratio of the employer may be charged with such payments. Since this depends on fault attributable to the employer, Minn.Stat, § 268.06 (1978), we remand the matter for the taking of additional evidence on this issue.

'Affirmed in part and remanded in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Loftis v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc., 297 N.W.2d 237, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1447 (Mich. 1980).

297 N.W.2d 237 (Loftis v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chauncey F. Hutter, Inc. v. Virginia Employment Commission
652 S.E.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2007)
City of Lakin v. Kansas Security Board of Review
865 P.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1993)
Kuether v. Personnel Pool of Minnesota
394 N.W.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
Henry v. Dolphin Temporary Help Services
386 N.W.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
Calkins v. Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security
489 N.E.2d 920 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. New Mexico Employment Security Department
669 P.2d 255 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1983)
Jansen v. PEOPLES ELEC. CO., INC.
317 N.W.2d 879 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1982)
Smith v. Employers' Overload Co.
314 N.W.2d 220 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf
310 N.W.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)