Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 30168013-3.
Jarrett M. Jusczak, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Jadrien C. Jusczak, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Lampert Yards, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent employer)
Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Smith, Judge.
We affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator-brothers committed employment misconduct by failing to return to work after a confrontation with their supervisor because the ULJ's findings are substantially supported by the record.
Relators, brothers Jarrett Jusczak and Jadrien Jusczak, worked at the Lampert Yards lumber yard in Moose Lake. On August 29, 2012, at the beginning of their lunch break, Jadrien Jusczak had a confrontation with their supervisor, yard manager Arnold Johnson, who is also the brothers' uncle. Tempers flared and the two men exchanged obscenities. Jarrett Jusczak joined the argument, taking his brother's side. Jarrett Jusczak and Johnson had a minor physical altercation. Johnson told the brothers to take their lunch break, and said words to the effect that if they did not come back after lunch they would no longer have jobs. The two men left, and did not return to work that day. When they arrived at work the next morning, Johnson terminated their employment.
The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that both men were ineligible for unemployment benefits because they had been discharged for employment misconduct. The brothers appealed those determinations. The ULJ conducted a consolidated evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, the brothers had identified a long list of witnesses, which the ULJ asked them to reduce to two or three in order to avoid repetitious testimony. The brothers selected four witnesses from their list and the ULJ called all four, but only one was available to testify. The testimony of the one available witness did not support the brothers' arguments.
The ULJ decided that the brothers' employment had been terminated due to employment misconduct, and that they are ineligible for benefits. The brothers requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed his decision. ...