From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonald v. PDQ

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jan 4, 1984
341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

Summary

holding that an employer "has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees handling employer's money"

Summary of this case from Furney v. MP Holdings, LLC

Opinion

No. C6-83-1328.

January 4, 1984.

Greg McDonald, pro se.

PDQ, pro se.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Heckt, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security.

Considered and decided by PARKER, J., P.J., and WOZNIAK and LANSING, JJ., with oral argument waived.


OPINION


Greg McDonald seeks unemployment benefits. A claims deputy allowed benefits, but the department Appeals Tribunal found Mr. McDonald guilty of misconduct disqualifying him from benefits. The commissioner's representative affirmed.

Mr. McDonald was fired by PDQ for violating a company policy requiring cashiers to ring up purchases immediately. Mr. McDonald knew about the policy. His orientation materials from PDQ made the policy clear. Less than a month before Mr. McDonald was found violating the policy, the PDQ management held an employee meeting, which Mr. McDonald attended, to reiterate the importance of the policy.

Misconduct is defined as

conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, inability or incapacity, inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct."

Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (emphasis added). The policy involved here was important to ensure that money was not misplaced or stolen. The employer has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees handling the employer's money. For violating the employer's policy, Mr. McDonald showed a substantial disregard for his employer's interests and his duties and obligations to his employer. Being guilty of misconduct, Mr. McDonald is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

McDonald v. PDQ

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jan 4, 1984
341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

holding that an employer "has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees handling employer's money"

Summary of this case from Furney v. MP Holdings, LLC

affirming disqualification from benefits where employee's violation of policy requiring cashiers to ring up purchases immediately showed substantial disregard for employer's interests and duties and for obligations to employer

Summary of this case from Micheln v. Video Update

stating that employers rightfully expect "scrupulous adherence" to cash-handling policies

Summary of this case from Beidel v. Corporate Comm'n of Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians

In McDonald, we upheld a decision to deny benefits to a former employee who, after a previous violation and a further warning, violated a company policy requiring cashiers to ring up purchases immediately.

Summary of this case from Marple v. Host International

In McDonald v. PDQ, 341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), an employee was found to be guilty of misconduct when he violated his employer's policy requiring cashiers to ring up sales immediately.

Summary of this case from Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co.
Case details for

McDonald v. PDQ

Case Details

Full title:Greg McDONALD, Relator, v. PDQ, Respondent, and Commissioner of Economic…

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 4, 1984

Citations

341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Raskin v. North Prairie Tileworks, Inc.

See, e.g., Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804; Gilkeson v. Indus. Parts Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452…

Pierce v. DiMa Corp.

And DiMa urges this court to adopt a bright line rule to conclude that violations of "money handling…