Cited by

“Generally, a single absence without permission from the employer may amount to misconduct.”

“[A] single absence without permission from the employer may amount to misconduct.”

See Hanson v. Crestliner, Inc.

The common-law definition considers the employee’s intent, which the exclusive statutory definition does not and, thus, the 6 common-law definition in Tilseth “no longer applies in light of statutory amendments.” see also Wilson, d at 458 The ULJ relied on the statutory definition of employment misconduct and, thus, did not err.

(indicating that “a single absence without permission from the employer ma y amount to misconduct”).

of Minn., (concluding that ULJ did not err in determining that relator did not have “good cause” to miss hearing due to arrest , and in failing to provide evidence showing arrest was not his fault); cf. Hanson v. Crestliner, Inc., (concluding that employee did not commit misconduct where absence from work without notice was due to unexpected hospitalization of an immediate family member).

Substantial record evidence supported the ULJ’s findings that Bell arrived to work late or not at all on four 2 See, (stating that an employee’s absence without notice to the employer may not be employment misconduct when an immediate family member needs care and absence does not show substantial lack of concern for employment).

See Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc. , (affirming denial of unemployment benefits where employee falsif ied his timesheet and failed to obtain approval to leave work early, vi olating his employer’s policies); (“Generally, a single absence without permission from the employer may amount to misconduct.”).

And generally, a single unexcused absence from work may constitute a serious violation of the standards an employer has the right to reasonably expect, unless the absence was “beyond the employee’s control and did not display a disregard for employment.” -43 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Del Dee Foods, -18 (Minn. App. 1986) (discussing several Minnesota cases that have held that a single absence may constitute misconduct).

“Under Tilseth , misconduct required an employee’s willful activity that evinced a disregard of an employer’s interest, disregard of the stan *823 dards of behavior that an employer had a right to expect, or lack of concern for an employee’s duties.”