Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc.

357 N.W.2d 130, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3748

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 6, 1984

DocketNo. C1-84-1456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 N.W.2d 130 (Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc., 357 N.W.2d 130, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3748 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Respondent Peter Neihart was discharged from his employment with relator Hayes Contractors, Inc. for taking an extended lunch without permission from his employer. It involved a single 2¾⅞ hour absence at a restaurant near the job site with a union representative. The Commissioner of Economic Security determined the discharge was for reasons other than misconduct and Neihart was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, citing Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2) (Supp.1983); Tilseth v. Midwest [131]*131Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973). Hoemberg v. Watco, 343 N.W.2d 676 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).

DECISION

In economic security cases, this court’s scope of review is limited. Reviewing the findings in the light most favorable to the decision, we find the evidence reasonably tends to sustain the Commissioner’s findings. White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn.1983); Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Minn.Ct.App.1983).

Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 281 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.1979), and Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project, 343 N.W.2d 43, 45 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), recognized that absenteeism from work is misconduct. However, those cases dealt with relatively long:term absences without any explanation or notice given and are distinguishable from this matter where the employer knew where Neihart was.

Affirmed.

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

SUMMARY OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Respondent Peter Neihart was discharged from his employment with relator Hayes Contractors, Inc. for taking an extended lunch without permission from his employer. It involved a single 2¾⅞ hour absence at a restaurant near the job site with a union representative. The Commissioner of Economic Security determined the discharge was for reasons other than misconduct and Neihart was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, citing Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2) (Supp.1983); Tilseth v. Midwest [131]*131Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973). Hoemberg v. Watco, 343 N.W.2d 676 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).

DECISION

In economic security cases, this court’s scope of review is limited. Reviewing the findings in the light most favorable to the decision, we find the evidence reasonably tends to sustain the Commissioner’s findings. White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn.1983); Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Minn.Ct.App.1983).

Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 281 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.1979), and Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project, 343 N.W.2d 43, 45 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), recognized that absenteeism from work is misconduct. However, those cases dealt with relatively long:term absences without any explanation or notice given and are distinguishable from this matter where the employer knew where Neihart was.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.W.2d 130, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neihart-v-hayes-contractors-inc-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack