09/14/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

something of a substantial nature directly affecting the right~ and interests of the public. The cause must be one touching the qualifications of the officer or his performance of its duties, showing that he is not a fit or proper person to hold the office. An attempt to remove an officer for any cause'not affecting his competency or fitness would be an excess of power, and equivalent to an arbitrary removal. In the absence of any statutory specification the sufficiency of the ca~se should be determined with reference to the character of the office, and 'the qualifications necessary to fill it. Id.. (citations omitted). The court in State ex tel. Jenson v. Civil Service Commission of Minneapoi!is, 268 Minn. 536, 130 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. 1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 943 (1965), held that notice under the Veterans Preference Act was sufficient where the notice is "adequate in substance" and "reasonably details the facts claimed to constitute misconduct so that the employee is given fair opportunity to prepare end.defend." 268 Minn. at 538-39, 130 N.W.2d at 146. In conducting a veterans preference hearing, the task of the hearing board is to dete!-mine whether the employer has acted reasonably.. Southern Minn. Mun. Power Aqencv v. Schrader, 394 N.W.2d 796,~ 801 (Minn. 1986). The burden of proof is on the employer to. establish reasonableness. Id. at 802. The board should consider "the veteran's conduct, the effect upon the workplace ahd work environment, and the effect upon the veteran's competency and fitness for the job." Id.. The hearing board may consider the nature of the job, the duties required to perform the job, and the qualifications necessary to fill the job. See Pawelk v.' Camden-T~wns. hip',--'415'N.W 2d 47~'50 (Minn. ct. ~pP. 1987). The employer's actions are reasonable if they .are fair, proper, just, -5-