Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re Requesting Help with a Verdict... Florida

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re Requesting Help with a Verdict... Florida

    Hello, this is my first post here.

    Last year, I worked for this church. I also caught a bad case of the flu and was down for an entire week. I was eventually let go for “excessive absenteeism” (two unaccounted days in a four-month period). I wasn’t getting my benefits afterwards, so I appealed it; lost. Appealed that, and won.

    Finding of Fact: The claimant began working for the employer, a leasing company, on July 1st 2009. The claimant worked for the client company, a church, as a house keeper. The claimant was not told he was a leased employee and required to report to the leasing company upon the conclusion of the work assignment. On October 9.2009, the housekeeping crew leader released the claimant from the client company for absenteeism. The crew leader did not instruct the claimant to report to the leasing company for reassignment. The claimant did not receive a letter from the leasing company telling to contact them for reassignment. The claimant did not contact the employer for reassignment. The claimant was separated effective October 9, 2009, when he did not contact the leasing company for another assignment.

    Conclusions of Law: the law provides that a leased employee of an employee-leasing company or a temporary employee of a temporary help firm voluntarily quit employment and is subject to disqualification if:
    a. the employer advised the temporary or leased employee at the time to hire and notified the leased employee at the time of separation to report for reassignment upon the conclusion of each assignment, and
    b. the temporary or leased employee was notified at the time of hire that failure for reassignment may result in denial of unemployment compensation benefits and
    c. the employee failed, without good cause, to contact the employer for reassignment upon conclusion of the latest assignment.

    The record shows the claimant separated from the leasing company when he did not contact leasing company for another assignment. The claimant’s own testimony shows he was unaware he was a leased employee. The claimant’s testimony shows he was not aware of his obligations to request an additional assignment. The claimant’s testimony shows he was never instructed to contact the leasing company for another assignment. The employer failed to show the claimant quit without good caused attributable to the employer, or the claimant was discharged for misconduct. Therefore, the claimant is not subject to disqualification from the receipt of benefits.

    The hearing officer was presented with conflicting testimony regarding material issues of fact and is charged with resolving these conflicts. The Unemployment Appeals Commission set forth factors to be considered in resolving credibility questions. These include the witness’ opportunity and capacity to observe the event or act in question; any prior inconsistent statement by the witness; witness bias or lack of bias; the contradiction of the witness’ version of events by other evidence or its consistency with other evidence; the inherit improbability of the witness’ version of events; and the witness’ demeanor. Upon considering these factors, the hearing officer finds the testimony of the claimant to be more credible. Therefore, material conflicts in the evidence are resolved in the favor of the claimant.
    The law provides that benefits will not be charged to the employment record of a contributing employer who furnishes required notice to the Agency when the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the work. Since the claimant was not separated under disqualifying circumstances, the employer’s tax account will be charged.

    Decision: The determination dated March 17, 2010 is Reversed. The claimant is qualified for the receipt of benefits. The employer’s tax account will be charged.

    If this decision disqualifies and/or holds the claimant ineligible for benefits already received, the claimant will be required to repay those benefits. The Specific amount of any overpayment will be calculated by the Agency and set forth in a separate overpayment determination, unless specified in this decision. However, the time to request review of this decision is as shown above, and is not stopped, delayed or extended by any other determination, decision or order.


    I was wondering if this also means I will get back all the backed-benefits I was denied since I was let go in October. I’m not sure, so I’m asking.

    Any help or insight would be appreciated.

  • #2
    Im pretty sure you will get the missed weeks paid to you retroactively (were you still attempting to claim weeks during that time?). But I am in fl and the UI agency is severly backed up, you may not get the retro weeks for awhile (even after you start receiving your current weeks)

    Comment

    Working...
    X