Agenda Packets - 2003/02/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council January 27, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 17 under the circumstances, the directives of the employer tightening up the procedures and controls 1 at the golf course and the directives as to how Mr. Hammerschmidt should handle himself in 2 communications were reasonable. 3 4 The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that Mr. Hammerschmidt was discharged because 5 of intentional conduct that disregarded the standards of behavior the employer had a right to 6 expect. Furthermore, his actions evinced an intent to disregard the directives of the employer on 7 a number of issues, including the style and method of his communications with others. 8 9 Finally, Mr. Hammerschmidt’s actions also constitute negligent or indifferent behavior that 10 shows a substantial lack of concern for his employment. Mr. Hammerschmidt argues that his 11 actions and employment were guided by an employment agreement however, even if true, that 12 does not obviate his need to comply with the appropriate laws, ordinances, and City polices that 13 is set forth specifically in his agreement. 14 15 Decision 16 17 On June 6, 2001 John Hammerschmidt was discharged from employment with the City of 18 Mounds View because of employment misconduct. Mr. Hammerschmidt is disqualified from the 19 payment of unemployment benefits. If Mr. Hammerschmidt satisfies the disqualification, any 20 benefits paid shall, under Minnesota Statutes Section 268.047, Subd. 1, be charged to the 21 reimbursing account of the City of Mounds View because the employer has elected under 22 Minnesota Statute 268.052 to reimburse the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program Trust 23 Fund for any benefits paid to its former employees, regardless of the reason for separation from 24 employment. 25 26 Council Member Quick asked if Mr. Hammerschmidt has to pay back the unemployment he 27 received. 28 29 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that he would need to but said he has the right to 30 appeal. 31 32 City Attorney Riggs indicated the 30-day right to appeal date began when the ruling was mailed 33 on January 16, 2003. 34 35 Council Member Quick asked when the right to appeal runs out. 36 37 City Attorney Riggs indicated the matter could be appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, if 38 the Court chooses to take up the action. 39 40 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated the City would not be involved in defending this 41 appeal. 42 43 City Attorney Riggs indicated the Commissioner of Employee Relations would handle the 44 appeal. 45