Opinion
No. C3-96-377.
Filed September 24, 1996.
Appeal from the Department of Economic Security, File No. 9429 UC 95.
Colleen R. Brooks, (Relator Pro Se)
Joseph W. Hammell, Amy E. Katz, Dorsey Whitney, (for Respondent Unisys Corporation)
Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, (for Respondent Commissioner)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Thoreen, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
A Commissioner's representative with the Department of Economic Security concluded that Colleen Brooks did not have good cause to resign her position with Unisys Corporation because of her dissatisfaction with Unisys's ethics code. We affirm.
FACTS
Brooks worked for Unisys as a clerk. When she was hired, in early 1993, Brooks listened to a tape discussing Unisys's ethics code. In September 1995, Brooks attended a training session on the ethics code.
The code stated in relevant part:
You are required to make prompt disclosure to your supervisor of any situation which may involve a conflict of interest.
* * *
You are expected to report any suspected violation or potential violation of the Code or other irregularities to your supervisor, the General Auditor, the Office of the General Counsel or the Corporate Ombudsman. * * * No adverse action or retribution of any kind will be taken against an employee who in good faith reports a suspected ethics violation. Any attempt to take such action will result in discipline against those involved.
All reports will be treated confidentially to the maximum extent consistent with fair and rigorous enforcement of the Code. Such reports may also be given anonymously to the Corporate Ombudsman.
Brooks resigned from Unisys because she felt that she could not comply with the above requirements. Brooks believed that the code was unenforceable and illegal, and placed her in danger of retaliation from her coworkers, should she be forced to report any suspected violations.
DECISION
An employee who voluntarily discontinues employment without "good cause attributable to the employer" is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. § subd. 1(a) (Supp. 1995). The employee has the burden of proving good cause to resign. See Marz v. Department of Employment Servs. , 256 N.W.2d 287, 289 (Minn. 1977). Whether an employee had good cause to resign is a question of law that does not bind the court if it is not reasonably supported by the findings. Zepp v. Arthur Treacher Fish Chips, Inc. , 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn. 1978).
"Good cause" is a reason to quit that is "real, not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable, not whimsical; there must be some compulsion produced by extraneous and necessitous circumstances." Ferguson v. Department of Employment Servs. , 311 Minn. 34, 44 n. 5, 247 N.W.2d 895, 900 n. 5 (1976). "Good cause" does not require employer negligence, fault, or wrongfulness. Hanson v. IDS Properties Mgmt. Co. , 308 Minn. 422, 425 n. 1, 242 N.W.2d 833, 835 n. 1 (1976); Neubert v. St. Mary's Hosp. Nursing Ctr. , 365 N.W.2d 780, 782 (Minn.App. 1984). The standard for determining good cause is "the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive." Ferguson , 311 Minn. at 44 n. 5, 247 N.W.2d at 900 n. 5.
Brooks's fear of retaliation, should she report conduct by a coworker, was speculative. See id. (stating that reason for quitting must be "real and not imaginary"). Brooks did not provide any evidence of retaliation by Unisys workers in similar situations, and the ethics code itself stated:
No adverse action or retribution of any kind [would] be taken against an employee who in good faith report[ed] a suspected ethics violation. Any attempt to take such action will result in discipline against those involved.
All reports will be treated confidentially to the maximum extent consistent with fair and rigorous enforcement of the Code. Such reports may also be given anonymously to the Corporate Ombudsman.
Unreasonable demands by an employer may provide an employee with good cause to quit. Zepp , 272 N.W.2d at 263. But an employer may institute reasonable policies and procedures that do not impose an unreasonable burden on the employee. Cf. Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Corp. , 372 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn.App. 1985) (stating that if employer's request is reasonable, employee's failure to accede to the request is misconduct). If a demand is reasonable, the employee generally does not have good cause to quit as a result of "mere dissatisfaction with working conditions." Ryks v. Nieuwsma Livestock Equip. , 410 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App. 1987).
Brooks argues that the ethics code imposed a reporting requirement that is contrary to state law. Brooks also argues that the ethics code was unreasonable and violated her rights of equal protection because state employees and other union employees are not subjected to a similar requirement to report violations by coworkers. Brooks's arguments are not persuasive. Brooks's equal protection rights under the constitution have not been violated, because Unisys is a private company, not a unit of government. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (stating that no "state" shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws). Furthermore, the fact that one employer may impose an unusual requirement on employees does not necessarily make the requirement unreasonable.
Even if Unisys's ethics code was unreasonable or illegal, Brooks had the duty to provide Unisys with sufficient notice of her objections before quitting. See Burtman v. Dealers Discount Supply , 347 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Minn.App. 1984) (stating that employer's insistence on illegal and immoral tactics would have provided employee with good cause to quit, had he provided the employer with sufficient notice of his objections), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1984); Ryks , 410 N.W.2d at 382 (stating that "offensive conditions must be reported before an employee quits, to allow the employer an opportunity to correct the problem"). Brooks testified that she did not discuss with Unisys her concerns about the ethics code.
We note that in her brief on appeal, Brooks has referred to several incidents that are unrelated to Brooks's issues with the ethics code. Even if Brooks may have had "good cause" to quit as a result of these incidents, she may be disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits if she actually quit because of the ethics code. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc. , 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App. 1986) (concluding that where employee's separation was "due to" job dissatisfaction, rather than chemical dependency, employee was disqualified from receiving benefits); Foy v. J.E.K. Indus. , 352 N.W.2d 123, 125 (Minn.App. 1984) (concluding that employee was disqualified from receiving benefits because employee quit as a result of job dissatisfaction rather than substantial reduction in wages). Brooks has consistently maintained that the reason for her resignation was the ethics code and not any dissatisfaction with her working conditions at Unisys.
Furthermore, the incidents cited by Brooks were not included in the record created by the reemployment insurance judge. The Commissioner's representative may only consider "the evidence submitted at the hearing before the reemployment insurance judge." Minn. Stat. § subd. 3 (Supp. 1995). This court is limited to reviewing the decision of the Commissioner's representative. Id. , subd. 7; Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. , 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). Therefore, we may not consider information that was not received into evidence by the reemployment insurance judge. See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl Co., Ltd. , 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977) (stating "well settled" rule that appellate courts may not base decisions on matters outside the record; matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered).