The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed two unemployment law judges’ decisions to deny unemployment compensation to individuals terminated for clear policy violations.
In Nolan v. Great River Federal Credit Union, Ms. Nolan was terminated for violating the credit union’s policies which prohibit employees from performing transactions concerning family members’ accounts. Ms. Nolan testified at the unemployment hearing, her mother called her at work and asked about transferring money from her account. Ms. Nolan asked another teller to assist in transferring the money, but was advised a hold was on her mother’s account and a transfer couldn’t occur. Ms. Nolan advised her mother of this. Ms. Nolan then contacted a collections representative to discuss the hold and electronically accessed her mother’s account information. Ms. Nolan acknowledged she was familiar with the credit union’s policies indicating, “we are not supposed to help family members in anyway” and are prohibited from doing anything regarding a relative’s account. The Court of Appeals has stated, “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” In this case, Ms. Nolan’s testimony established she violated the policies when she engaged the teller and collections representative on her mother’s behalf. This knowing disregard for the reasonable policies constitutes employment misconduct and benefits are denied.
In Baker v. Minn. State Supreme Court, Ms. Baker worked as an assistant appellate clerk for the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. She was hired by the Minnesota Judicial Branch in 1985. In 1998, the Minnesota Judicial Branch enacted Policy 317 governing the use of internet and technology by employees. Inappropriate use was defined as “…(1) wagering, betting, selling, (2) commercial activities, e.g. personal for-profit business activities,….” Employees may access all policies on the employee intranet site, and they also receive e-mail notifications when policies are updated.
In 2014, Ms. Baker’s supervisor, Ms. O’Neill, became concerned with Ms. Baker’s productivity. Ms. O’Neill has previously seen Ms. Baker using the internet when she was to be working and had warned Ms. Baker about excessive internet use. Ms. O’Neill then asked the human resources department and IT division to review Ms. Baker’s internet use. It was discovered Ms. Baker had used the internet during work to access numerous non-work related websites like eBay, Amazon, and PayPal. Ms. Baker was then discharged for violation of the internet and technology use policy.
Ms. Baker argued she did not commit employment misconduct because she did not know of Policy 317. During the hearing before the ULJ, Ms. Baker admitted to visiting websites for personal use. Ms. Baker also acknowledged “I’m sure I probably have used it (intranet site) but I don’t know exactly what is on there or why I went to it.” The ULJ denied unemployment compensation finding Ms. Baker used the Judicial Branch’s telecommunication system to engage in selling activity and personal business, and spent a significant amount of time on personal websites outside of authorized break times. The Court of Appeals stated, misconduct need not be deliberate and that Ms. Baker’s argument she did not know of Policy 317 was unpersuasive given she had received approximately ten verbal warnings about excessive internet use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits.
A couple of points to consider:
1) Employers need to have clear policies;
2) Employees need to know about the policies; and
3) It is a good idea to be able to prove the employees have access to the policies or have received copies of the policies.