Unemployment Rules in MN are not the same as Unemployment Laws

unemployment-rules

Unemployment Rules

Because unemployment rules are not the same as unemployment statues, I encourage applicants to know about both.

As I have referenced in other posts, seeking eligibility is not a hopeless process.  Yes, it can be frustrating, but only for the people who do not know the rules.

I believe every worker and employee in MN can use these rules to their advantage.

Unemployment Rules in Minnesota

Rules for unemployment are found here.  In my experience, people working at the workforce center have absolutely no concept how these rules work.

Every unemployed worker in Minnesota trying to prove or show eligibility should know these rules inside and out.

If an applicant spends time reviewing the rules, they will  ind very concrete information about:

  • Rescheduling a hearing,
  • Evidence,
  • Witnesses,
  • Subpoenas, and
  • What happens at unemployment hearing.

Unemployment Statutes in Minnesota

When I meet with a person, I use the term law interchangeably with unemployment rules and statutes.

In Minnesota, an applicant can find statutes here.

If a worker or employee reviews these rules in whole, they will find help with:

  • Definitions of commonly used terms (like employment misconduct or wages),
  • When benefits are paid, and
  • How to appeal an unemployment case.

When do Unemployment Rules in MN apply?

The rules for unemployment always apply.  Assuming otherwise can be a mistake.  Likewise, statutes impact every appeal too.

Really, there is rarely a situation when both rules and statutes are not in play.

More help with Unemployment Rules in Minnesota

Any worker or applicant trying to conduct their own research should consider visiting a law library and utilize WestLaw.com.

Most law libraries in Minnesota allow patrons (non lawyers) to access free legal research tools.  In my experience, an employee trying to access unemployment rules and statutes can use free resources to determine if a rule has a legal precedent.

 

Comments