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

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vacation, health insurance, seasonal, baby on the way Wisconsin

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

  • Vacation, health insurance, seasonal, baby on the way Wisconsin

    My husband’s been employed with the same company for 3 years, seasonal employment generally running from March/April through mid-October. Even though it is seasonal work, he is granted vacation pay, and health insurance benefits, which are immediately restored when he returns and terminated when laid off (remaining unused vacation paid out on last check in October). When collecting unemployment during the other months, he is still considered an employee and “subject to recall” as he is not required to perform the two required weekly work searches.

    However this year, he was not called back to work until mid-May here recently due to the economy. In December we married and are expecting our first child very soon, June 16th. Upon return he notified his supervisor of the change for insurance coverage and premium deductions of which his supervisor then replied that he would have to go through the 90-day waiting period as he had been laid off for more than 6 months (6 months + 1 week to be exact). His employment manual says nothing of anything of “being out for 6 or more months”; nor does his health insurance benefits book.

    Assuming he still was entitled to vacation pay, today he attempted to notify his supervisor of taking a week’s worth of vacation for the birth of our child. His response in return was that he may not be entitled to this as well, that he would be getting back to him tomorrow on this.

    Nevertheless I am appalled at this, I’m sure it is because he is married and expecting now and they want to avoid the expense. The question is there anything we can do? Whom to contact? I’m steaming mad because right before he was called back we were frustrated and assumed he never would be and anticipated him just to continue to draw unemployment until and after the baby was born. He would have been better off!

    Please note that the previous year he technically terminated his employment and went to work for a different company during the usual layoff, did not return to this company when called back however later returned to work for this company and he was granted his vacation pay and health insurance immediately upon his return!

    I’m at a loss, any advice is appreciated.

  • #2
    His employment manual says nothing of anything of “being out for 6 or more months”; nor does his health insurance benefits book. It doesn't matter what the employee handbook says - it matters what the group health insurance certificate says. (I don't know if that's what you're referring to by his health insurance benefits book.) You/your husband need to get a copy of that and see what the eligibility requirements are and if there is a section which addresses reinstatement following a "break in service." There are several possibilities:

    1 - that the Plan calls for immediate reinstatement upon recall to work.
    2 - that the Plan calls for immediate reinstatement upon recall to work provided the break in service does not exceeed "X" number of days or months.
    3 - that the Plan calls for a 90 day waiting period after a break in service and they were violating the terms of the Plan every time they reinstated him as soon as he was recalled.

    If you think you and your husband are entitled to immediate coverage under the terms of the Plan, then your husband may contact the federal Department of Labor and file a complaint. If the Plan does not address breaks in service at all, then the normal eligibilty requirements, including the 90 day waiting period, applies to everyone.

    Assuming he still was entitled to vacation pay, today he attempted to notify his supervisor of taking a week’s worth of vacation for the birth of our child. His response in return was that he may not be entitled to this as well, that he would be getting back to him tomorrow on this. This is entirely a matter of company policy.
    Last edited by Beth3; 06-02-2009, 05:40 AM.

    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