NH Unemployment question (collect, file, receive, apply)

[NickMathews]

I was laid off three weeks ago and I had never been laid off before. So, please excuse my ignorance.
I applied for UI and it went through right away. BUT I was offered a job less than a week later.. needless to say I was over the moon. I did not file my first week claim and did not receive any money from UI.


I took the job and right away I knew something was not right. I was working different hours than I was told during the interview, with no breaks except 30 minutes for lunch. (I'm not even sure if that's legal) They extended my hours from 8 hours a day to 9 (with no breaks). The job itself was making appointments for the medical practice, which would have been fine but it was also clinical, meaning answering questions about medications, prescriptions and the like. They hired me because I had call center experience and had worked in the medical field. The ad for the job said 'familiar with medical terminology.'
I made it clear to my new employer I wasn't comfortable with the clinical side of the job as I did not feel I was qualified to answer them, and I was told I would have to answer clinical questions.
BTW, the training was ridiculous, I spent a week watching someone make appointments. Also, I couldn't clock in or out. I had to give my supervisor a written time sheet. I had no log in's on the SIX different systems I was supposed to be working on and a book of rules for fifty doctors. It was a mess.
Here's the bad part... I quit after a week. I cited the clinical side of the job and have not received my first (and only) paycheck yet.
I had NO IDEA that if I took a job and quit I couldn't collect unemployment from my previous job. It paid MORE than my previous job and it was full time!
My question is, can I cite the fact that I wasn't 'qualified' for the position? The terrible training? The misrepresentation of the job?
I re-filed my claim this morning, and THEN realized the fact that I quit the new job would probably completely screw me.
Thanks.

[janja1]

Originally Posted by NickMathews

I had NO IDEA that if I took a job and quit I couldn't collect unemployment from my previous job. It paid MORE than my previous job and it was full time!
My question is, can I cite the fact that I wasn't 'qualified' for the position? The terrible training? The misrepresentation of the job?
I re-filed my claim this morning, and THEN realized the fact that I quit the new job would probably completely screw me.
Thanks.

These are not considered good reasons to quit (according to UI).

If your employer is willing to pay you to work at a job you don't feel qualified to do - that is on them.

If your employer is willing to pay you to work though you have not been properly trained - that is on them.

If the employer misrepresented the job when they hired you, the fact that you continued to work a week shows you "accepted" the actual terms.

If the employer fired you for poor performance, that would be a different matter.

[janja1]

Originally Posted by NickMathews

I took the job and right away I knew something was not right. I was working different hours than I was told during the interview, with no breaks except 30 minutes for lunch. (I'm not even sure if that's legal) They extended my hours from 8 hours a day to 9 (with no breaks).

You might want to check and see what breaks are required by your state. I am not sure if it would matter to UI. It might in some states. I read a case in one state where the employer fired the employee because the employee refused to come in off the clock for a disciplinary meeting. UI said that it was not legal to require the employee to do anything off the clock, and they granted benefits. However, this was also a case where the employee had been fired.

Do you have any evidence that they required you to work without breaks?

Concerning the other issues -- You might want to look up some information on this:

https://www.nhes.nh.gov/faq/document...ntary-quit.pdf

"FAQ – Voluntary Quit Changes 10/1/2012
RSA 282-A:32 (An individual shall not be disqualified and benefits shall be paid if)
I(a)(1): an unemployed individual, not under a disqualification, accepts employment which
would not have been deemed suitable work and terminates such employment within a
period of not more than 12 consecutive weeks of employment with or without good cause;
The only change to this law is to increase the time period from 4 to 12 weeks. This is to be
consistent with the change to the definition of chargeable employer per RSA 282-A:12 Most
Recent Employer (MRE). "

Maybe NH doesn't penalize someone for at least trying another job as harshly as other states do.

[janja1]

https://www.nh.gov/labor/faq/wage-hour.htm#lunchperiod

"Is there a law concerning a lunch period?

An employer cannot require that an employee work more than five consecutive hours without granting a thirty minute lunch or eating period. If the employer cannot allow thirty minutes the employee must be paid if they are eating and working at the same time (RSA 275:30-A)."

[janja1]

Originally Posted by janja1

You might want to check and see what breaks are required by your state. I am not sure if it would matter to UI. It might in some states. I read a case in one state where the employer fired the employee because the employee refused to come in off the clock for a disciplinary meeting. UI said that it was not legal to require the employee to do anything off the clock, and they granted benefits. However, this was also a case where the employee had been fired.

Do you have any evidence that they required you to work without breaks?

Concerning the other issues -- You might want to look up some information on this:

https://www.nhes.nh.gov/faq/document...ntary-quit.pdf

"FAQ – Voluntary Quit Changes 10/1/2012
RSA 282-A:32 (An individual shall not be disqualified and benefits shall be paid if)
I(a)(1): an unemployed individual, not under a disqualification, accepts employment which
would not have been deemed suitable work and terminates such employment within a
period of not more than 12 consecutive weeks of employment with or without good cause;
The only change to this law is to increase the time period from 4 to 12 weeks. This is to be
consistent with the change to the definition of chargeable employer per RSA 282-A:12 Most
Recent Employer (MRE). "

Maybe NH doesn't penalize someone for at least trying another job as harshly as other states do.

Here is something you might be able to work with:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-ham...ction282-a-32/

" (1) The commissioner, in determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, shall consider the following:
(A) The degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals; and
(B) His physical fitness; and
(C) His prior training; and
(D) His experience; and
(E) His prospects for securing, in his labor market area, work in his customary occupation; and
(F) The distance of the available work from his residence; but such distance shall not be substantially greater than that distance to all those places to which others living in the same town or city travel for work which utilizes similar or related skills or services, and also to where he acquired his currently available annual earnings; and
(G) His prior earnings and length of unemployment, but his prior earnings shall be given more weight than his length of unemployment.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this chapter to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new full-time or part-time work under any of the following conditions:
(A) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;
(B) If the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality;
(C) If, as a condition of being employed, the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization;
(D) If the individual is unable to apply for or accept full-time or part-time work during the hours of a particular shift because he or she is the only adult available for the care of an ill, infirm, or physically or mentally disabled family member whom a licensed physician has certified is in need of care for the activities of daily living;
(E) If the individual is unable to apply for or accept full-time or part-time work during the hours of a particular shift because he or she is the only adult available for the care of a natural, adopted, step, or foster child under the age of 16; or
(F) If the individual is permanently physically and/or mentally disabled, full-time or part-time work for such individual shall be deemed to be the hours and shifts the individual is physically able to work as certified by a licensed physician provided there is a market for the services the individual offers during such hours and shifts."

[NickMathews]

Wow, thanks. That's very helpful.

"FAQ – Voluntary Quit Changes 10/1/2012
RSA 282-A:32 (An individual shall not be disqualified and benefits shall be paid if)
I(a)(1): an unemployed individual, not under a disqualification, accepts employment which
would not have been deemed suitable work and terminates such employment within a
period of not more than 12 consecutive weeks of employment with or without good cause;
The only change to this law is to increase the time period from 4 to 12 weeks. This is to be
consistent with the change to the definition of chargeable employer per RSA 282-A:12 Most
Recent Employer (MRE). "

I read this yesterday while I was combing through the state laws. It was NOT suitable for many, many reasons. New Hampshire's state motto is Live free or Die, and the state laws are a little more relaxed. For example, it is not a law to wear a helmet while driving a motorcycle. If you die in a fiery crash, that's your prerogative. Maybe this hold true to unemployment? Maybe the fact that I didn't put in a weekly claim with work in my favor.

(C) His prior training; (D) His experience; <--- I was not trained or qualified for the position. I have a tenuous grasp of medical issues and prescriptions, working in a doctors office but I don't have the experience.

Honestly, that's the real reason why I left, the thought of giving out medical advice and something bad happening to a patient was unacceptable. Thank you for your reply, it made me realize why I couldn't keep that job. I may have lost my unemployment and I might end up homeless but I have my integrity.

[Chyvan]

Originally Posted by NickMathews

(C) His prior training; (D) His experience; <--- I was not trained or qualified for the position. I have a tenuous grasp of medical issues and prescriptions, working in a doctors office but I don't have the experience.

Wrong angle. You don't get to say that you quit because you weren't qualified.

From the most liberal state in the country: https://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Suitabl...ngorExperience

"Occasionally a claimant will refuse a referral or offer of work on the basis that he or she lacks sufficient experience or training to handle the offered job. Seldom will a claimant have good cause for refusing a job because he or she feels unqualified. This is usually for the employer to decide. "

You need to make the JOB the problem.

Originally Posted by NickMathews

Honestly, that's the real reason why I left, the thought of giving out medical advice and something bad happening to a patient was unacceptable. Thank you for your reply, it made me realize why I couldn't keep that job. I may have lost my unemployment and I might end up homeless but I have my integrity.

I don't believe you. I think you quit the job because you figured out that it would be better to be on UI than working this particular job until you found something better. That's what most first-time claimants figure out AFTER it's too late. Had you come here first, I'd have told you not to sell yourself short and look for GOOD jobs, not jobs that could easily get.

[NickMathews]

Lol, that's funny. I was given severance, all of my PTO which was two weeks pay, and two additional weeks pay for a no notice lay off. I had also saved quite a bit of money. So, what I FIGURED was I had enough money to get by until I found another job. I completely forgot about the UI until after I quit. As I said in my original post I had never filed before, and the only reason I filed in the first place was the owner of the company I was laid off from advised me to file.