Terrified phone interview Friday what should I say? (sorry long read)

[Chyvan]

Originally Posted by Rabrrita

Your employer claimed that you refused suitable work due to your school work. You have to show that your school work was a non issue and that you did not refuse work because of it. On the surface that would reverse the initial decission, but because your in IL, you should be prepared to explain the refusal as if school was not mentioned.

I'm not getting where you're coming from. It says "voluntary quit," and the hearing notice has no issue regarding a refusal. Is there something you know like with a drug test that turns a firing into a behind the scenes quit? I see this as nothing more than a separation issue with one saying "discharged," and the other party saying "quit."

Also, I want to point out that the exemployer is saying she refused work, but the new job was with a different entity. If the new company isn't at the hearing, I just can't for the life of me see how a refusal issue can be properly handled at this hearing.

[Rabrrita]

Originally Posted by Chyvan

I'm not getting where you're coming from. It says "voluntary quit," and the hearing notice has no issue regarding a refusal. Is there something you know like with a drug test that turns a firing into a behind the scenes quit? I see this as nothing more than a separation issue with one saying "discharged," and the other party saying "quit."

I'm going by what unemployemnt states is the reason they denied benefits:
Issue 006 601A-Voluntary Leaving
Deny effective 09/14/2014-12/31/9999
Did the claimant volunarily leave unemployment? 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 09/14/2014 and will be determined ineligible until she meets the eligibility requirements.

If that is what unemployemnt is saying, thats most likely going to be the focus of the hearing, unless the employer decides to claim something else. If that happens, the claimant just states they were laid off (or whatever they told unemployment on the form) and just tell the hearing officer that the company keeps changing the reason and making things up.

Originally Posted by Chyvan

Also, I want to point out that the exemployer is saying she refused work, but the new job was with a different entity. If the new company isn't at the hearing, I just can't for the life of me see how a refusal issue can be properly handled at this hearing.

Actually, the OP initially stated it was different companies but based on answering certain questions, it may be all part of the same compnay. The OP really is only guessing that they are still seperate and not a single company. We also have the problem that the OP is mentioning what some old manager/supervisors are saying but does not have the benefit of knowing what is actually happening within the new company. For allw e know, some of the old staff may be with the new company and speaking with them is speaking with the new company even though the OP is assuming they represent the old company.

[ramostam]

thanks for all your help everyone, I had hearing and it went great! I don't want to jinx it but I think I got it~ trying not to be too happy or overconfident. Honestly I will be disappointed and a upset if I dont get it, but I got to say my peace and the judge seemed to agree and that felt so good!

I will post later on tonight once I get my daughter to bed, what the judge dug at with my former employer (many of the points you three on here mentioned Chyvan & Rabrrita & Adrianne22 of course!)

[ramostam]

No I haven't forgot to reply, I have looked through ALL these threads and I hate when OP never let you know what happened good or bad-so I will update my thread good or bad. I haven't replied yet because I am so worried about jinxing my claim. I have this feeling I am getting denied~because of my luck so far. My first denial came within like 3 days-so I am extremely impatient right now. I almost cant do anything, but I promise I WILL post first day I receive letter.

[ramostam]

I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

did not get letter though- I was feeling down and went online to check my account and it shows deposit made on 11/21/2014 for 7 weeks, checked my bank and it is not there yet a little worried about that but I think it should post in 24 hours maybe?

When I get letter I assume it will go over the reasons why I won in more detail than the initial telephone hearing when I lost right?

[Chyvan]

Great news. Statistically had to be a "discharge," because so few get benefits in a "quit." I can't wait to read the analysis.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by ramostam

I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

did not get letter though- I was feeling down and went online to check my account and it shows deposit made on 11/21/2014 for 7 weeks, checked my bank and it is not there yet a little worried about that but I think it should post in 24 hours maybe?

When I get letter I assume it will go over the reasons why I won in more detail than the initial telephone hearing when I lost right?

Congratulations. If website says deposit was made today, earliest it will post to your account will Saturday or Monday.

Yes, decision letter will state exactly why you won. Please post the decision verbatim. Thanks.

[ramostam]

okay just to let you know about telephone hearing now that I won....

The call was 60 minutes!

The judge was really nice, he started to ask me what happened and I just went over my timeline and he did not interrupt me ONE TIME. I had really took your advice to heart about dates (which my lawyer said was excellent advice b/c the judges are sticklers for dates and that makes it easier to approve if you have your dates and sound like you know what your talking about), I went through all my text messages and even checked weather reports ( I know one date where an incident had happened in my timeline was a major storm, it was a little rough b/c this summer was a heavy rainfall summer but that incident was a really bad one which helped finding that date) got all my dates and narrowed them down to the correct dates (or at least w/in a day or two)

I think I went on for 15-20 minutes-he asked a few questions, my lawyer said to use flex time as one of my bullet points~ you guys were right though that was my only bullet point he did not like and their is different definitions to flex time that I don't understand nor do I need or want to now!!!!!!

One thing I think Judged liked that I had mentioned, about my boss,

ME: "this is not her fault rather the corporations fault that took us over. She tried her hardest they did not follow through."

I had felt bad because I kept saying my bosses' name but that was my point of contact no one from HR ever approached us or we weren't even allowed to because we should not go above or supervisors head. This situation should not have been all on her.

ME: "The other departments all were sat down and given papers with names of Reps they could contact if they had any questions-yet we were not treated like this was it because we were not deemed worthy enough by "******" because we only had three employees in our department?" I was not fortunate enough to be apart of a department large enough to be deemed worthy to have a rep sit us down and tell us sorry about your job loss-we have possible positions for you-here's a paper With a rep you can contact at anytime if you have any questions This was done for every other department/store closed down and I know because I was apart of payroll- I knew these things"

My employer had their representative they normally have, he was stuck on the school issue but the judge did not even seem to care about that my lawyer did bring it up to cover the bases I believe and to hammer home the point it was IDES approved and it was online and I had been in school last semester. I really think he (employer representative) was not expecting me to come prepared~ my boss held to her word and did not show up.

** The judge was upset about why they gave me only four hours to decide,
JUDGE: "why would you do that- Do you think that is really enough time to decide something of this magnitude ?"

Employer Response: "I was not aware of that-that she was only given four hours to decide"

**Judge also did not like the confusion about different companies.
Judge: why is this separate company-having a employee from another company trying to procure Ms. Smith a position? How are these companies related?"
my employer representative said there were lots of "crossover positions and they were sister companies" which is a BOLDFACE LIE about the crossover positions we had separate GM's and management teams~we did not co-mingle personnel-he told judge he was a crossover employee which I am not entirely sure is a lie but I think it not truthful because I do not believe he handled their unemployment cases. If he was a "crossover" employee he was the ONLY one I know for a fact, I did payroll and their company is entirely separate and ran different payroll.

**He wanted to know why human resources was not involved in all of this-why would the office manager be the one trying to procure me a position.

**Judge also touched on the job suitability-

I used the line I got from here about a "step back professionally." Which my boss had said she was sorry to me about everyone knew it was a step back. this is where I got mad because when the judge asked my former employer if this was a step back, he said "no Ms. Smith was a payroll clerk, and did filing."

JUDGE: "So you don't think going from payroll to a position you can essentially hire a temp for is a step back professionally?"

Employer response: "Well no..... and Ms. Smith started out as a temp"

(which is true and I had stated at the beginning of the call) This angered me so much. Outright lie~ Sure I started out as a temp but as time progressed I rose in duties~ I was in charge of the conversion of payroll from the manual system to automated system, I (along with my boss)handled I9 issues when the Department of Labor was beating down the corps back for documentation, I ran payroll for our stores which at our peak of stores was 18 stores and three departments and the separate STORE MANAGERS PAYROLL by myself, I attended every managers meetings (none of the telephone reps were ever there), when my boss was planning to go on vacation she would tell people over the phone "just talk to my Assistant Manager Jane-she will be able to help you" at one time I went to stores to help interview and hire- -trained MGMT on the new systems when we were taken over-does that sound like duties you would give to a temp off the streets?


**Judge also did not like the comment my boss made about HR telling the GM they "were interested in you for position"

JUDGE: "Doesn't that sound like the job was truly not Ms. Smiths if they are interested in her?-would you think you have a job if someone said they are interested in you?"

Employer response: "isn't that hearsay because HR told GM and then GM told her boss?" (he said actual names but I am not saying here)

Judge: "Somewhat-but that statement is compelling" He paused and seemed to be a little perplexed


** Judge also did not like about how the position I was supposed to take was not vacated by the time I was suppose to move over.

Judge: "this position she was suppose to move to was not vacated by the time she was suppose to start Sept 14 when was that other employee let go?

Employer response: "Well we did end up letting that employee go.."

Judge: "when?"

Employer Response: "The following Monday and we replaced her with a permanent employee."

Judge: "okay what was that date?"

ER: "The 22nd"

Judge: "But Ms. Smith was supposed to start the 14th correct? How is she supposed to start a job that is currently filled and not vacated?"

**Then We ended Closing statements

ER REP" " well Ms. Smith was offered a position she initially accepted then declined, because she was going back to school-and being in school whether it is online or not is denying factor in unemployment-that's all"

My Lawyer: Ms. Smith was a great employee who was offered a job, but the job was not definite and this was ascertained thru bits and pieces she had to piece together herself-not thru HR as it should have been done.

Thanks guys for all your help- I appreciated it so much!

[ramostam]

Chyvan and Adrianne22 in response to your above messages- thanks to both of you and I promise I will post the letter-it was helpful to me to read other stories about cases-but they rarely post the outcome-so I definitely will!

You were all so helpful and I can't say it enough, it is so hard when you are in this position and especially if you are paycheck to paycheck and cant afford a real lawyer, not being dismissive of the lawyer I had but she just left me a message two days before (I was told they would call day before) Ironically she called when I was in a interview.

The message she left was about how the proceedings were going to go and when I called her back, she said " didn't you get my message?' I said "yes" She said "well what else do you need?" I was a little stunned and couldn't think fast on my feet and asked what I needed and should we talk about anything she talked to me for a few minutes and that was it.

But I get it-they need to help as many people in a little time-but I definitely think your forum was the most helpful to me it is where you can get the best advice and to help the individual formulate an actual defense!

[Chyvan]

Really good summary of what happened.