Public Health Nursing Service v. Freeman
This text of 340 N.W.2d 344 (Public Health Nursing Service v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Relator, Public Health Nursing Service of Dakota County, a current part-time employer of respondent, Roland P. Freeman, brings for review, by writ of certiorari, the determination of the Commissioner of Economic Security that relator be charged for unemployment compensation benefits paid to respondent.
[345]*345The issue for decision, one of statutory construction, is whether employers are to be charged for unemployment compensation benefits paid to employees working on a sporadic part-time basis while being laid off from full-time employment with another employer.1 In the instant case, the dispute is whether an employer of part-time employees may be charged for benefits under Minn.Stat. § 268.06, subd. 5 (1982),2 where the employment earnings, although diminished in some weeks, did not on the average diminish for weeks within the base period.
In Zoet v. Benson Hotel Corp., 274 N.W.2d 120 (Minn.1978), we said that the commissioner may not charge employer’s account for benefits paid to employee who is employed on an intermittent, part-time basis and suffered no reduction in average hours.
Following Zoet, the legislature changed the statutory language from “substantially equal to part time employment previously furnished” to “provide weekly employment equal to at least 90 percent of the part time employment provided in the base period.” See Act of May 24, 1979, ch. 181, § 4, 1979 Minn.Laws 255, 268 (emphasis added). It must be presumed that the legislature intended to change the court’s holding in Zoet when it inserted the word “weekly” and revised the formula for charging benefits to an employer’s account. The term “weekly” must be read in accordance with the statutory definition of “week” as a “calendar week, ending at midnight Saturday, or the equivalent thereof, as determined in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the commissioner.” Minn.Stat. § 268.04, subd. 27 (1982). We interpret the statute to require that employer, who does not want its account to be charged for sporadic, intermittent part-time employment, must have provided the employee with part-time employment each and every week during the base period and continue to provide at least 90% of such employment during the current benefit period.
Although the change in section 268.-06, subd. 5, may appear inequitable and may frustrate opportunities for sporadic, intermittent part-time employment, it is not our role to question the wisdom of the legislature. Because, in the instant case, relator did not provide respondent with weekly part-time employment, we are bound to affirm.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
340 N.W.2d 344, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-health-nursing-service-v-freeman-minn-1983.