Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Truth in hiring Alaska

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

  • powell
    replied
    Where do you find the laws on Truth in Hiring?
    I have been looking on the net and find none
    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    Although there are limited truth-in-hiring laws, you have posted nothing to suggest that your situation falls into the extremely limited category when they apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • powell
    replied
    It seams rather odd the employer can not tell me the truth in the hiring process. then after arriving at he job 800 miles from home after 2 day send both myself and son home and tell us we are laid off. then contest our ui, not tell ui the truth.
    Durring the appeal process (hearing) admit to the ALJ that they decided to termanate us on there own. Now the employer lost and we get our UI>

    the damages we felt. our ui bennes were withheld for 1 1/2 months, we lost out on the wages we would have made and union bennifets.
    STRESS including ui being held up, and defending ourself,

    it would seam a employer should tell the truth about the work to be done, when I asked the employer about him not telling the truth he addmitted he did not and he also addmitted that during the hearing.

    are there any laws about being truthfull during the hiring process. or can a employer tell you any thing to get you on the job. then discarge you with no problem when the employee asked a question about them not telling you the truth.

    the issue was the use of respioraters and health issues for the both of us wont allow us to work in respioraters. they did not want to follow OSHA rules and provide the required medical testing before the respiorator fit test.

    thanks
    dp
    Last edited by powell; 10-12-2010, 01:24 PM. Reason: left somthing out

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    Good post, DAW. In regard to employment at will, there are a few states that still
    don't recognize DR as an exception to employment at will. (though Alaska &
    Washington do)

    Leave a comment:


  • DAW
    replied
    DR claims are hard to win in a "labor law" context because they are pulling on the other end of the rope as the very well established Employment-At-Will rule. DR cases, while not a sure thing, can do a lot better in a non-employment context because Employment-At-Will is no longer an issue in non-employment cases.

    If we read one of the very few labor law DR cases that was a "win", like say Grouse, the judge always spends a lot of time explaining why the decision does not violate Employment-At-Will, and just how very limited the decision is. Which is the other problem with labor law related DR claims. In the few cases where they win, they tend to be very self limiting. The damages are always a function of the "lie", not the employment relationship. And not all "lies" are valid issues in a DR claim, even ignoring Employment-At-Will.

    The big case that everyone likes to cite is Grouse, who was a pharmacist that interviewed and was supposedly "hired" by a big name pharmacy chain. Grouse quit his existing job, moved to the new location, reported to work, and was told when he showed up that the new employer changed their mind. Point of fact, the new employer never intended to hire Grouse. He was their backup in case their primary WHO HAD ALREADY STARTED WORK did not work out. The new employer not only deliberated lied to Grouse in a way as to cause measurable financial damages, but they made no effort what so ever to mitigate the damages to Grouses. They even put back the "start" date several times to make sure that the primary they previously hired worked out. Under Employment-At-Will the employer could legally fire Grouse the moment he walked in the door. But this employer functionally never had any intention of hiring Grouse and made no effort to mitigate Grouse's damages (a very big deal in a DR claim). What maybe everyone misses is that the employer did a lot more then lie. The above actions opened up a lot of non-labor law recourse doors. The new employer tried to hide behind Employment-At-Will, which worked, as far as the employment went. But that defense was worthless in regards to the actions the pretend employer took prior to the supposed first day of work.

    Despite the extreme nature of this employer's action, this was a CA decision, and there were many strongly worded dissenting private opinions (outside of CA) who felt these were legal action under Employment At Will. IMO, probably the same people who feel that flogging should still be covered somewhere in Common Law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    When I read this thread earlier, I started to suggest a "possible" DR case
    but then I didn't. As you said, they are hard to win but I guess you never know
    though.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAW
    replied
    There is a very small chance that a Detrimental Reliance suit would work. Particularly since the reliance on false representations would be part of the argument. The problem is that DR claims rarely work in a labor law setting. Worse, these are no DIY actions. They require a specialty labor law attorney who will likely want to be paid up front (as in "not on a contingent basis").

    Leave a comment:


  • CatBert
    replied
    Well, technically the OP can sue, he just wouldn't have a case or a chance of winning anything and like so many other lawsuits would be wasting the time of the courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    No, you can't. Lying is not against the law. Receiving UI benefits does not mean that they did something illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    What would you sue them FOR? You've received the back UI benefits, so you have no damages, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • powell
    replied
    truth in hiring

    Now after 3 1/2 months I have been throught the appeial and won. the contractor lied in the haring and both myself and son won our appeal so we get our ui.
    Now: can i file a suit aganist the contractor and the project manager personaly for not telling the truth during the hiring process and for lieing during the appeal hearing.

    thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
    Relative to wages, in most states, you would have received a notice of financial determination already.
    That's most likely true. Thanks, Patty. (I just wasn't sure based on info in OP's post re financial eligibility.) Betty3

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    Originally posted by Betty3 View Post
    You can appeal the UI decision. However; before accepting this job, when was the last time you worked & for how long had you worked? You need to qualify "financially" for UI also. You need enough wages in the base period to file an UI claim.
    Have you received a notice of a telephone hearing to provide your side for UI?

    Relative to wages, in most states, you would have received a notice of financial determination already.

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    You can appeal the UI decision. However; before accepting this job, when was the last time you worked & for how long had you worked? You need to qualify "financially" for UI also. You need enough wages in the base period to file an UI claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • powell
    replied
    I am talking about both, Him not disclosing all the details of the project and telling me i was laid off. then telling UI that i quit.
    At best he is not a honist man and then lied about me quiting to ui. I did not quit another job to take this one.
    thanks
    Last edited by powell; 07-19-2010, 05:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:

The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
Working...
X