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

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unhappy employees looking to unemployment after relocation, California

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

  • Unhappy employees looking to unemployment after relocation, California

    Hi, I was wondering if anyone can help me find whatever labor code covers unemployment benefits due to a company moving. I've been looking around, but just don't know how to find what I need.

    The company I am the production manager for is going to be relocating about 56 miles away from our current location. Our workforce is primarily production level workers in a manufacturing capacity and as such, somewhat easy to replace at our new location with the exception of specific training for new hires on our product. With this in mind the boss has extended the availability of all the workers present positions, but has so far not offered any kind of incentive for anyone to stay with the company even though they will be incurring significant additional costs to continue with the company.

    This is now starting a rift of animosity within the company and the buzz around the plant is a lot of talk about just quitting and filing for unemployment till something new comes along. I'm curious if what they are planning is in deed a possibility. I don't know what the distance requirement for eligibility is, if any at all, but with gas at $4 a gallon and most of them living fairly close and not making a lot of money to begin with, it could probably make a good case for a financial hardship.

    Basically, I'm wondering where we stand on this as they keep coming to me looking for answers I don't have, and the powers that be are not being very informative with them about the move or where they stand on the whole money thing. I'd hate to see any of them make an emotional decision to go a route that may not pan out for them and leave them with no income, unless, of course, this actually would work for them. In which case, I'd hate to see them all leave with this plan in mind and we're left hanging with no workers and a bunch of ex employees pissing off the boss with UI claims. At the very least, I would hope we could keep them temporarily till they find other employment and we have a chance to replace them and deal with a limited number of claims, preferably none.

    Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that what's really going on is the boss is banking on the ones sitting on the fence worrying about money will just quit and save himself the trouble of lay-offs and unemployment claims. I don't know though, will this just end up backfiring on him and they'll all still have valid claims anyway?

    This is becoming so frustrating as I don't want to lose any of my people, even though I know it's inevitable. I'm trying to be the cheerleader and keep as many people on board with the move as I can, but the plummeting morale around here is making it very hard.

    Thanks for any help
    Mike

  • #2
    http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/uvqtofc.htm explains some of the stuff behind the decision making process.

    Usually quitting in anticipation of a layoff or other event will DQ an employee from UI.

    Not taking a job at the new plant 56 miles away, may or may not DQ an employee.

    Comment


    • #3
      Took me a couple of seconds. DQ=disqualify.
      I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

      Comment


      • #4
        From the EDD website:
        When the claimant's employment moves to a place to which it would not be possible or practical for the claimant to commute, the claimant generally will have good cause for quitting.
        I believe the old standard of reasonable commuting distance was 30 miles. It may have decreased with the current gas prices. We are also in the process of moving our a department 73 miles away. I am awaiting a response or definition of "reasonable commuting distance".

        I would file. It is likely that in CA, they would be eligible for UI.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know about CA, but in my state, there is no "bright line" for reasonable commuting distance because it can vary so much depending on where in the state you are. In my part of the state, where there is plenty of public transportation and a major city nearby, what is reasonable will be a lot different than the western part of the state which is mostly rural and has no public transportation to speak of.
          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


          • #6
            Shoot...reasonable commuting distance can be 30 miles in an open area, or 10 miles here in SoCal. It can take an hour to go 10 miles in traffic

            Though EDD takes those factors into consideration, I have old decisions that reference the 30 mile rule. We shall see if they are still the same.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheRed View Post
              http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/uvqtofc.htm explains some of the stuff behind the decision making process.

              Usually quitting in anticipation of a layoff or other event will DQ an employee from UI.

              Not taking a job at the new plant 56 miles away, may or may not DQ an employee.
              From the way that I read Mike's post, everyone has been offered their new jobs, just at the same rate of pay, and 56 miles away. In my opinion, if the employees quit now, they ARE NOT quitting in anticipation of anything, because there is NOTHING to anticipate. The move isn't a maybe, it is a reality.

              In California, there is the "Good Cause" standard: "Good cause" exists for leaving work, when a substantial motivating factor in causing the claimant to leave work, at the time of leaving, whether or not work connected, is real, substantial, and compelling and would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to leave work under the same circumstances.

              I think if you combine the 56 mile commute, with today's gas prices, the fact that most of these are low-wage earners, and no financial incentive whatsoever to remain with the company, I think that nearly all of them could quit and be eligible for unemployment.

              Comment


              • #8
                Took me a couple of seconds. DQ=disqualify.
                Hey, Patty, that's 'cause in Texas we all know DQ= Dairy Queen!

                I have nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Carry on.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by las365 View Post
                  Hey, Patty, that's 'cause in Texas we all know DQ= Dairy Queen!

                  I have nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Carry on.
                  That's what I was going to say also. DQ = Dairy Queen here in Illinois. We have two in our town.
                  Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                  Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Betty3 View Post
                    That's what I was going to say also. DQ = Dairy Queen here in Illinois. We have two in our town.

                    We also know that in my little town north of Pittsburgh.
                    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It would make a difference when the relocation takes place, I would think.

                      If the move is scheduled to happen August 1 (date is an example), they couldn't collect if they quit tomorrow in anticipation of the relocation.

                      But using the same example, if they worked up until July 31 and then didn't make the move the next day, I think it's reasonable to assume that unemployment would be a fair possibility.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Thanks for all the replies. I had a feeling which way the responses would go, I just couldn't find anything concrete that said 'this many miles' or 'this much hardship'. I know everything is dependent on the individual situations, but if there was a mile rule that was as low as 30 miles, that would be a key issue that would affect every person that works here with the exception of the boss, who claims his drive will be the same distance, and a few people we've recently hired that are locals for the new location. A concrete rule would give them teeth, a vague rule will keep them apprehensive. Ultimately, they would all probably be able to justify a case.

                        I guess weather or not they could go for UI doesn't really seem to be the question anymore, instead it sounds like it may be all in how they time it. It also sounds like unless they do their research, there may be some that are probably thinking they can just quit any time before the move and collect, but could end up being denied. I guess the only way to find out is to wait for it to happen then sit back and watch the fireworks.

                        In the mean time I'll just keep trying to maintain the peace.

                        Thanks again

                        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