Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fighting Goliath for UEC, they changed my hiring agreement Texas

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

  • Fighting Goliath for UEC, they changed my hiring agreement Texas

    I worked for a big semiconductor company for over 20 years as an equipment maintenance technician which was my official job title. I went to school, received specialized training, and gathered much experience in the field.
    Then a thoroughly incompetent manager took over and decided to downsize my job. He moved me into an operator job in another area of the company to replace one that got laid off. My pay stayed the same, although it would have been cut in half if HR had known about the change.
    Equipment maintenance and operator have completely different job descriptions.
    For nine months I informed my manager that I was not happy with the arrangement, and waited for an EQ MT job to surface within the company. After nine months I quit, but to leave the door open, my resignation letter had a clause that left the company an option during my two weeks notice to restore my Eq Mt job.
    The HR was laxadaisical to say the least, and nothing was presented, so I quit as promised.

    TWC decision for unemployment benefits denied. The examiner called me prior to the statement in the mail, didn't ask for any of the documents I had. The statement said reason for denial was because I did not use all the means provided by employer to fix problem.

    I appealed with thorough documentation that proved all efforts were done on my part to correct their mistake.

    My appeal tribunal is coming up soon. The paperwork in the bundle returned back to me has a different reason from the company to deny me benefits...saying I stayed for a few months, so therefore I agreed to the change in hiring agreement.

    So you see, if I quit as soon as I was moved to operator position they would say I did not give it time to resolve (use all means available). If I quit after any length of time then they say I must have agreed with the change in hiring agreement.

    My argument is: the time a person spends in a forced change of job position is irrevalent since the outcome is the same. There is no specified time interval a person must surpass that would indicate acceptance of a job change, especially when the only alternative provided is to quit. No documents were signed from me accepting the change.

    So what is meant when they say a just cause to quit can be because of a change in hiring agreement?
    Would changing a persons job from a manager to cook, airline pilot to taxi cab driver, politician to building custodian...be just cause to quit even if his pay was not cut...but only because the companies HR did not know?

    I may file a lawsuit for lost wages, restoration of Eq Mt job, and settlement costs, if I am denied again. Tape recorder is on pause and ready.

    Please tell me what your credentials are if you decide to comment.
    Thanks in advance,

    David with a slingshot

  • #2
    If your job was downsized and you were given another while having your pay and benefits remain in tact, and you stayed in that job for several months before quitting, I don't see that you have a very good shot at all for UC. If the position you were in no longer exists, how are they to move you back into it? Unless the jobs are so different that no reasonable person would expect you to go from one to another, for example your politician to janitor, then you might be eligible. But just being transferrred to a different job that isn't necessarily your choosing, while suffering no loss of anything else, would probably not qualify you.

    You also have absolutely no basis to sue. Your employer could have just outright fired you when your old job was downsized. I'm not sure what the threat regarding the tape recorder is about.
    I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

    Comment


    • #3
      To ElleMDs response

      Your response verified what I already know; most people do not understand the difference between an equipment maintenance technician job and an operator job.
      The technically challenged TWC tribunal will view it the same way.
      I told my story to an AT&T maintenance person who was reconfiguring lines to my house yesterday. He said what happened to me would never happen to him because they have a union.
      So get a job that's protected by a union.
      Financially I am good for years.
      So I don't care about the UI check, just doing the appeal out of principle, share a few personal thoughts with a disgraceful company.
      It used to be a great place to work until the founders son took over and benchmarked its policies on labor practices in third world countries.
      Why are foreign companies manufacturing in the US successful, while most American companies feel they must move their manufacturing to foreign countries to be successful?
      Another true story...
      How could my ex company (A) be so sinister as to make a secret deal with another company (B) that consist of buying (B)s product in exchange for (B) not hiring (A)s employees? Why would (A) and (B) think they have the right to block unhappy employees from leaving (A) to go to (B). I knew of two good former employees that were fired from (B) for no reason shortly after the deal was made. The irony was (A) would not rehire them. We received some very nice computers from (B), however, very nice. Didn't make the papers.
      What is it about Texas...alls fair in war, love, and employment in Texas?
      High tech needs a Union! Union! Union!
      Thx Elle and all for your time,

      David

      Comment


      • #4
        Check out : http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/appl/vl.pdf on page 62...it discusses some rulings based on Unemployment appeals. It might help (or hurt) your appeal depending on your specific situation/details.

        Also I think it hurt your case to stay in that position for 9 months. It also hurts your case because they didn't lower your pay at all.

        I would be very very surprised if you won on appeal.

        rr
        Last edited by hr for me; 11-21-2006, 09:26 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm not sure how this relates to workers compensation. You're not going to get any pity in this forum, as most of us have been injured and are just trying to survive.

          As far as your situation, they were paying you the same amount. What's all the whining about? I'm a Mass Spectrometry Field Engineer. I injured my back and I am currently unable to perform my job functions as a result. I would sweep floors if I could get my old salary back. Try living on WC.

          Comment


          • #6
            I hate to break it to you but having a union has no effect on UI. The state decides who qualifies and they do not care if there is a union or not. It also doesn't mean you can't ever be downsized or reassigned. Whether a union is appropriate for any given workplace is a very complex issue, but I wouldn't count on them to solve all problems with the employer. It just doesn't work that way.
            I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ted and Natasha, if you read the description the owners have placed as you open this forum, you'll see that unemployment issues can be correctly placed here.
              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you all so much, just what I needed-

                The link of appeal cases RR included in his/her message helped considerably.
                Although the change in my job description was more pronounced, the following case hit home:

                Appeal No. 1643-CA-77. The claimant quit her job because she was to be transferred from senior patient representative to receptionist, although her pay would have remained the same. She considered the action as a demotion as many entry level persons were assigned to work as receptionists. HELD: The employer has the right to establish and fill positions with whatever personnel it desires. The fact that many entry level personnel were employed as receptionists did not establish that the claimant was being demoted, as there was to be no decrease in pay. Further more, there was no evidence that the transfer would have caused the claimant any hardship. Accordingly, the claimant's quitting was without good cause connected with the work.

                Now, TWC states that I accepted the change in hiring agreement because I worked at it for nine months. Here is a case where the lady quit before taking on the change, and she still got refused UI.
                So the following sentence from the above case is all TWC really has to say to deny benefits: "The employer has the right to establish and fill positions with whatever personnel it desires."
                The (expletive) with hiring agreement? Yup
                I disagree with some statements regarding lack of protection from unions. I was raised in Ohio where unions reign supreme. They exists for a reason, employers tend to (expletive). The internal structure of a union has the power and vested incentive to help you resolve issues with your employer. Just ask anyone working for the USPO.
                The guy with disability living on WC is right...quit my whining.
                I am just going to categorize this as a tragedy, incompetent management caused the company to lose a good employee. Ker-Plop em'
                So this is my last entry regarding this issue, thanks everyone for your input.
                Time to put my efforts to something better, like investing to become the next Donald Trump.

                Good luck and Happy Thanksgiving!

                David
                Last edited by infinitespace; 11-21-2006, 02:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Please delete the expletive. There is no need for it and it violates the site's rules.
                  I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No

                    This is a free country, you are not a child I hope, and "ker plop em" is a valid expression common in the English language. It is an accurate expression of my feelings carrying the intensity I need to convey.
                    I don't care if my post is removed, banned, membership revoked, or whatever. Really.
                    People don't realize that sterility is one of the main problems in America today. No sole, no freedom, no individuality. Well I am not a machine, and will say how I feel. Too bad Elle.
                    Good bye Labor Law Talk (where is the icon for waving?)

                    edit:
                    There...is that better? Ker Plop them!
                    Last edited by infinitespace; 11-21-2006, 02:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What part of, it violates the site's rules, did you not understand? Where did you get the idea that you can violate the rules with impunity just because "it's a free country"?
                      The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X