Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 30042065-3 Elizabeth A. Moldrem, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Kristin H.B. Parker, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent PAL Management, Inc.)
Lee B. Nelson, Colleen A. Timmer, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.
Relator appeals from a decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by her employer. We affirm.
Relator Elizabeth Moldrem worked for respondent PAL Management Inc. (PAL) as a branch-manager-in-training from May 21 until July 19, 2012. She had 10 years of banking industry experience and 18 years overall of management experience prior to working for PAL. Had she completed her training, relator would have become the manager of a different branch.
During the training period, relator became dissatisfied with PAL's business practices and the training she was receiving. She reported her concerns to respondent's district manager. Specifically, relator believed that the manager of the branch at which she was training was inadequately receiving and handling confidential client information, thereby exposing the company to the risk of fines. She believed that the branch manager was taking inadequate precautions with the counting of cash. She also believed that the training procedures were inadequate and unstructured, and that the branch manager was lackadaisical and unprofessional. Relator believed that the branch manager disliked her because she was being paid a significantly higher salary than he was.
In an e-mail she sent to the district manager on July 11, relator requested a transfer to complete her training at a different branch. On July 14, the branch manager who was training relator issued two written reprimands to her. One reprimanded relator for clocking in late on several occasions, and the other reprimanded her for bypassing the branch manager and discussing company-policy compliance directly with branch employees. Relator met with the district supervisor and a human resources director on July 16. At the meeting, relator's concerns and transfer request were discussed.
Relator testified that, at the end of the meeting, her request for a transfer was denied. The district manager and human resources supervisor testified that they had informed relator at the close of the meeting that they would consider her transfer request but that they instructed her to continue working at her assigned branch in the meantime. They testified that they have been working to address the branch manager's violations of the company policies with respect to security and client confidentiality.
Relator decided not to return to work following the July meeting. Relator quit because of what she described as concerns about "poor working conditions" that she expressed to upper ...