Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because she said this: "2. Second part; company "***" I will call them company C. is a entirely different company but we work together, we need their trucks to supply our stores, ( I dont want to put to much out here just a little worried) but with payroll if you worked for company A and then went over to C you had a two W-2's because we were different companies. We were in the same building and both companies were owned by the same owner prior to the buyout, Company B bought both of our companies out because they wanted to continue with that business model."
I assumed it was more the Hudson Bay model.
Regardless, the job she had, "interviewing and hiring and payroll, training mgmt. for the new programs," was so much different than what they offerred, "phone operator calling on pickups and answering complaint calls," added to the fact she'd be maxed out in pay grade, that to me, this is either a discharge/refusal, or a "good cause" quit so I wasn't super worried about whether Company A/B was trying to speak for Company C.
Actually there is another possibility that has not been explored. But, that issue depends on an answer your co-worker may know and you don’t. I apologize for not mentioning this earlier but I kept getting a headache trying to decipher what you were saying.
As I understand it, you were ultimately employed by Company 1 which was bought by Corp A. Corp A also purchased another company we will call Company 2. The position you we offered was with Company 2. Is that correct?
If so, are these companies now a single entity company (Corp A) or a multi entity companies (Corp A, Company 1, Company 2)?
By this I mean are they set up similar to Walmart where your employment is with Walmart who owns several entities like Sam Club, Walmex, etc., but they are all administered by the single Walmart Corporation. Or are they set up similar to Hudson Bay Company which owns several stores like Saks Fifth Avenue, Hudson Bay Stores, Lord and Taylor; but each segment handles its own administration.
The reason the administration of the company is important is to establish if the offer was made by the company, if the offer was an offer, and if the use of voluntary quit is null because the company can’t speak for the affairs of the other company.
Another way to look at it is if you work for a Walmart Store and they are closing the stor but offer a position at Sam’s club, Walmart’s HR can just assign you to that Sam's club in a similar position without the need to be "Hired" by Sam’s Club. However, if you worked for Saks Fifth Avenue and they were closing the store, Saks can’t offer you a position at Lord & Taylor as Hudson Bay keeps all those entities separate and they each operate as their own company with their own administration. Saks can never offer you anything at L&T, all they can do is say they heard they are hiring, but it’s up to you to apply.
So, do you know how your company was structured during the times of your issue?
Sorry about how confusing this is ! Its just how my termination went- there was no fore thought in letting my dept go they half assed it and i blame myself also I should have been more proactive but I trusted them and I have never been in a position like this with a job I had before. Even though I was around for the store closures they always handled the mgmt side differently than the stores, they were less formal, but they always sided with the employee
also Truly I dont know about the compnay set up they operated under the "cloak of dagger" method, iknow they said for tax purposes they had to keep the companys and the names up and running for the year . we were seperate and had different w2s but Company B took the payroll over that may cease now, i know the two companys (bought out ones A&C) have different paydates and that may mean nothing and as to add more confusion I know the guy who handles our unemployment cases did not fight company c`s cases
But I do believe they are in the process of combining, this did not lightbulb in my mind until this was brought up, but if they are a public company I should be able to find that out right? I am going to try and do that and let you know they are a large company so it should not be hard to do.
i really am sorry about this confusion but I am truly grateful for your continued help in spite of it. You guys have been more helpful than legal aid was and helped calm my nerves more.
As to this, your coworker may be getting benefits because she correctly characterized it as a discharge which it was. Also, your employer is going along with it. They could have done the same thing to her, and she would then be having the same issues that you are. You on the other hand weren't sure, so you've already said it was a quit. You put yourself in a position where you're fighting your own words. Doesn't mean you won't get benefits, but it's going to take you longer.
I said I was laid off, so I should have put discharged huh? God i wish I would have been reading this forum months ago I would have been so much better prepared and definetly not in this situation.
As for my co-worker I am sure the company is going along with her claim because
she is the bosses ( of my department) daughter, when company B took over they said no family members could work under family members but let her 'grandfather' in.Typical of how things went when I was there I dont know how I trusted them . Dumb and stupid I guess.
Technically though she shouldnt be receiving it because she denied a position,right? Them saying they are denying mine because I agreed then rescinded is their reasoning only not a unemployment mandate right?
You're right. It's your employer that used the word "quit." You could say "laid off," and get away with it. Your department was eliminated. "Laid off" is supposed to be used when it's a lack of work, but if you get a false statement penalty because of it, it's appealable for that reason. Because of what happens to the people in CA, I always tell people to say "discharged" unless they know for a fact that the employer will also be marking the "laid off" box.
You're right. It's your employer that used the word "quit." You could say "laid off," and get away with it. Your department was eliminated. "Laid off" is supposed to be used when it's a lack of work, but if you get a false statement penalty because of it, it's appeal able for that reason. Because of what happens to the people in CA, I always tell people to say "discharged" unless they know for a fact that the employer will also be marking the "laid off" box.
Gosh your good!
I would have thought laid off would have been applicable in that situation of my department shut down. But that is my novice viewpoint . Growing up my grandfather worked in the factories in Michigan in the 80's when their was widespread shutdowns occurring. I just remember hearing laid off always floated around the house, when his factory closed.
Technically though she shouldnt be receiving it because she denied a position,right?
Wrong. She, probably, correctly framed this issue as a discharge and refusal of new employment - on the basis of unsuitability. You didn't.
There is so much verbage on this thread, you are not discerning the differences discussed above. Further, being who she is, the employer probably facilitated her approval in its responses to Illinois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramostam
Them saying they are denying mine because I agreed then rescinded is their reasoning only not a unemployment mandate right?
There is a HUGE difference between the two scenarios. A quit is not a job refusal. Because you are deemed - rightly or wrongly - to have 'accepted' this new position, to later refuse it is considered a quit.
Therefore, Illinois is deciding these issues accordingly.
At this point, you can't do anything further but wait for the determination, post the exact language, here, and develop a strategy for the appeal should it come to that.
At this point, you can't do anything further but wait for the determination, post the exact language, here, and develop a strategy for the appeal should it come to that.
Your right i just need to wait. In the meantime I keep looking for a job and write down any applicable facts. Different facts keep coming into my head about this, I wish there was a paper trail and I would have my emails-but with that being my company email I no longer have access to it. I am going to look through my files here at home and see if I have anything, I use to keep a lot of paperwork. But i know I have been trying to get rid of a lot of stuff and purge, so I may have thrown out things connected with that rotten company.
I requested my file under the employee file act of Illinois and of course they did not get it to me within the seven days, we are now going on the 11th day. I want to show I have no write-ups after almost six years and was a trustworthy employee, probably wont make a difference, but whatever.
I cant say it enough and I will say it in every post- thanks for hearing me out and taking the time to respond, that is to all of you.
Okay so here is a kicker, I received the determination and it is stating WHOLE NEW FACTS! It states that I left because of school which I thought was a moot point! letter reads:
Based on the issue included in this letter you are not eligible for benefits or wait week credit until you meet the eligibility requirements .
Letter reads: Issue 006 601A Voluntary leaving
Deny Effective 09/14/2014-12/31/9999
Did the claimant voluntarily leave employment? The evidence shows the claimant voluntarily left work at ***** because she was attending or planned to attend school. Since the employer did not have the ability to control the conditions or acts the claimant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer , the claimant is ineligible for benefits from 9/14/2014 and will be determined to be ineligible until she meets the eligibility requirements
Interviewer asked me about school but I had this flagged from the beginning when I applied for unemployment I told them I was going to school and had been going to school and they had even sent me a letter saying all my online classes were approved because it would not interfere with me looking for a job, so I was approved on this matter. This keeps getting better!
You never mentioned going to school. Give us the details of this because beleive it or not IT IS a major issue with unemployment.
FYI, Unemployment approving schooling while on or while collecting benefits has nothing to do with an employer saying it's a factor with your termination.
Yes I didn't mention school because I was going last semester WHILE I WAS WORKING- I had even went to the WIA rep at my school because our department was GOING TO BE eliminated to see what programs they offered for when I was going to be unemployed.
Also when I had called my boss to ask why they were denying me she stated "I do not know" and she thought it was because "I had accepted the job initially and then rescinded." When I spoke with the interviewer she stated , my former employers stated I refused a job offer after accepting it and that is why they were protesting. (HER EXACT WORDS) She asked me so many questions about job suitability and hours and dates of job offers who I talked to about all of it, all the rigamarole, our twelve minute conversation was probably eight or nine minutes revolving around that!
She did ask about school saying they had mentioned it, but it was in passing, I figured that was also in my file, I had claimed this when I started. and they are ALL ONLINE classes and it is PART TIME-they have my schedule AND I WENT LAST SEMESTER. I cant believe this, this is the issue, I thought it be the job refusal. I had spoken with the GM and told him I had a few job leads before I left also talked to the District Manager and asked if I could use as a reference because I was applying for a job that need a professional references, so they know I was looking for a job. I also have emails from a few of the places I had applied In SEPTEMBER showing I had applied and thanking me for applying.
Frustrating here I was expecting it to be because of job refusal, now this!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Growing up my grandfather worked in the factories in Michigan in the 80's when their was widespread shutdowns occurring. I just remember hearing laid off always floated around the house, when his factory closed.
