Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 120.

40 citing documents.

Shakitha Jones, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Rather than requiring Jones to cover the shift, the policy required Jones only to provide information to V&J so that V&J can “adequately plan its staffing needs.” Cf. Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., , 123 (Minn. App. 1985) 7 (concluding that it is reasonable for an employer to require a notification from an employee so that the employer can adequately plan for its staffing needs).
Todd Leuze, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dependency Diversion Project , (affirming misconduct determination where relator missed work while incarcerated for unpaid fines); see also Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., d 120, 123-24 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming misconduct determination where relator’s absence from work was because of his arrest).2 2 Cf. Jenkins v. Am.
Kristin K. Choronzy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Grp., (“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” (quotation omitted)); cf. Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc. , (concluding that employee committed misconduct by missing work after arrest on outstanding warrant where he knew about warrant and own actions led to arrest).
Helen Brown, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., (stating that absence from work under circumstances within the control of the employee can constitute employment misconduct).
Amanulah Dharsee, Relator v. Rubber Industries, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Amanulah Dharsee, Relator v. Rubber Industries, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -95 (Minn. App. 2006) (upholding ULJ’s finding that relator quit when she failed to contact or return to work after two days); Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., (stating that “an employer cannot be expected to hold a job open indefinitely” and can “reasonably expect an employee to keep it apprised of his whereabouts”) (quotation omitted).
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In cases such as this, “[t]he critical factor is whether the employee’s behavior caused [her] failure to report to work.” Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc.
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cf. Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., (“Absence from work under circumstances within the control of the employee has been determined to be misconduct sufficient to deny benefits.
Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
at 488 (quoting Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., ).
Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Monyoro v. Marriott Corp. 403 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Monyoro v. Marriott Corp. 403 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morrison County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Armstrong 394 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Morrison County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Armstrong 394 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller 390 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller 390 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1 Similarly strong language is found in Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., : An employer can * * * reasonably expect an employee to keep it apprised of his whereabouts.
Montgomery v. F & M Marquette National Bank 384 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Montgomery v. F & M Marquette National Bank 384 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Gilkeson v. INDUSTRIAL PARTS & SERVICE, INC. 383 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gilkeson v. INDUSTRIAL PARTS & SERVICE, INC. 383 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cardozo & Brother, Inc., 243 Minn. 361, 364 , Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., this court indicated that an employee’s absences from work due to his incarceration constituted misconduct, since those absences were within the employee’s control (he could have paid his fines on time).
Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. 381 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. 381 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As we stated in Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc., “[t]he critical factor is whether the employee’s behavior caused his failure to report to work.” See also Washington v. Amway Grand Plaza, 135 Mich.App.
Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Grotjohn v. Cornbelt Foods, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Grotjohn v. Cornbelt Foods, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.
Burnevik v. Department of Economic Security 367 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Burnevik v. Department of Economic Security 367 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
E.g., Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by