UI Hearing

JM in ATL

I have a telephone UI hearing at 1PM. I actually want the ee to get the benefits, but she has already been denied. The hearing is for her appeal, which I had to tell her to do. Long story here...

Anyway - I don't want to go into the hearing and have to answer questions which could potentially keep her from getting benefits.

Would you just not take the call and not participate at all, hoping the hearing officer will overturn the previous decision?

TN HR

Nope! I just had the same thing happen out of the Atlanta South (or Morrow/South Lake) office. I did not send in separation info and based on the claimant's version it was denied. He appealed, I did not participate in the phone hearing and the examiner denied it again, noting for the record that I had not participated nor submitted separation info in a timely manner, but denied nonetheless.

Gene

JM in ATL

Dam*! Not what I wanted to hear.

I guess I will just have to play dumb and give a lot of non specific answers.

Why did you terminate? Performance.

What was wrong with performance? Not what I wanted and I wasn't willing to train.

GA is a hard state for employees to get UI in when they have been fired. Ugh!

TN HR

I know what you mean. That's why Sonny just froze employer contributions since the plan is overfunded. Shocker! When you don't disburse from a plan and continue to take premiums that's what happens!

My guy was termed under a no-fault attendance policy.

Good luck on this one.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-04-05 AT 12:17PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The decision on appeal will be made based on two things: What is already in the record and what is added at the hearing. If the evidence was initially strong enough to deny, but the claimant does provide something on appeal that could sway but that you are not there to counter, he/she will probably draw. But, if the claimant's statement got her denied initially and she cannot add something in her favor, it will remain as is. The only other way I know of to ensure she draws, if that is the company's intent, is to attend the telephone hearing and make these two statements: (1) The company does not wish to contest the awarding of unemploymen insurance in this case, and (2) I am not able to tell you that our procedures were followed and cannot tell you for sure that we should have terminated her. Then, if the hearing officer persisted, you would have to, in effect, be either non-paticipatory or uncooperative enough for him to rule in her favor.

I won't get into why you want to do this in the first place, since that wasn't your question.





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

stilldazed

Not sure I want to know the story and not really asking for it to be divulged, but my natural curiosity wonders why you want the employee to get the benefits. I may be speaking way out of turn here, but I have a tendency to do that sometimes. This forum is fairly anonymous, so maybe I won't embarass myself too much. Your position on the issue sounds like a matter of personal loyalty--yours to your employer vs. yours to something else at the expense of your employer. If you are really committed to your employer, it seems to me that supporting the "corporate process" is where your allegience should be. If you can't support it, maybe you should rethink your present affiliation and look for greener pastures. . .. Unless you are working for free, you are being paid by your employer to do a job, which includes protecting company assets to some degree from an HR perspective. Paying out wages for no work (i.e., unemployment benefits for a non employee) ranks low on the list of investment options in ROI analyses. If I were your boss and heard your position, you might be filing for unemployment.

Don't mean to sound harsh, but the business side of your decision doesn't make much sense. So, what happened anyway at the hearing?

pork1

Yes, and I am stilldazed, too. Obviously, the claimant told the truth the first time around and now the company wants to withold the truth or facts in the matter.

Whoa Nellie, this mule don't run backwards, very well! Oviously, some one has not been eating the "other white meat" for their smarts has dribbled on the ground.

PORK

Don D

Pork! You old rascal! You better grab a musket and be prepared to defend your livestock. I'm having an offline conversation with another Forumite about the Biblical admonition to not eat pork! Are you prepared to defend? If enough people are converted to this line of action, you will be drawing unemployment yourself!





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

TN HR

Speaking for myself only, it is sometimes a wise business decision to allow someone to collect UI in lieu of engaging in "hostilities".

I can tell you that many times I have used it when a severance did not apply and/or it would appear improper for whatever reason.

This dovetails into a recent thread on losing the battle in order to win the war from a financial standpoint.

Gene

Don D

You're right that there are indeed times when it is 'better' to simply let the claimant draw. But, that should be in the best interest of the Company, not at the whim of one of us, for any other reason. I didn't question the poster in that regard other than to touch on it and I did point out that it should be 'what the company wants to do'. Since the poster did not elaborate, and therefore I do not know anything more about it other than what was posted, I don't know that I would come down critically on allowing the claimant to draw.





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

stilldazed

I agree that there are times when allowing benefits to be paid is a smart move and also agree that the option should be the decision of the company.

My comments were not really intended to criticize but to encourage some self examination on the part of the original poster.

Maybe I was feeling sassy yesterday, but the original message was specifically '"I" want.' Maybe the "I" part of the post is a misstatement to mean the collective corporate "we." I sincerely hope so. Otherwise, I defer back to my original response that the poster review the loyalty factor. I think we are all faced with situations in which we must reconcile our personal feelings with our professional obligations. There is no guarantee that the two will align all the time, or that once aligned they won't fall into misalignment. That's a by product of change.

I've had a lot situations where a supervisor, advocating for an employee, has little or no understanding of the bigger picture as well as some risks that usually warrant consideration, allows him/herself to be driven by emotional attachment to the worker, interjects a personal opinion on what he/she believes is proper given the "circumstances," and refuses to consider the impact the gracious act may have on the rest of the organization. When I get to the bottom of those situations, I typically find that one of three things:
1. an unusually strong personal relationship between the worker and the supervisor (to the point where the supervisor is incapable of behaving professionally with the worker),
2. a guilt-ridden supervisor trying trying to make amends to the worker for something I should have known about and didn't, or
3. a supervisor who has fallen victim to the iceberg theory (only knows 10% of the story and hasn't bothered to seek out the other 90%).

I also can't believe that the organization of which I am a part is grossly different from most of others out there. The "I want" raised a red flag with me. I would dig for more info if I was a senior position to the "I want" and the "I want" was inconsistent with corporate policy/philosophy.

pork1

Don: I am prepared to defend! "I got my musket loaded and cock"!

For everyone's information the Swine animal in our herd are many times cleaner and safe to consum than in previous years. The body parts of the Hog/pig taken to market are totally different from the concept of a Bibical year "dirty and filty swine" before Christ and after Christ. The swine animal of today has shed the image of yester years. It has always been the understanding that pork had to be cooked to a very high temperture in oder to kill any disease that might be imbeded in the meat. That is no longer the case, the germs have been bred out of the current market hog and I and my family eat pork that may be, just short of the total white meat, with just a slight image of a pink meat and with lots of moisture and taste.

Eat more pork, the other white meat!

PORK

SMace

Pork, I have to confess I ate leftover roasted turkey breast for lunch. Man was it good- had some potatoes and carrots in it too. Why don't you post some pork recipes on the recipe forum so I can enjoy the other white meat too?

Don D

I have a thousand. Here's one, if you're serious: Take one three pound pork loin roast and slice an 'X' into one end, all the other way through the other end. Put chopped spinach, olive oil, mushroom pieces, salt and pepper in a gallon ziplock and cut off the tip of the bag. Press the bag into the 'X' and squeeze ingredients in like you would with a pastry bag. Bake or smoke roast as usual. Slice and enjoy. The result is like pork chops with a succulent green circle in the middle.





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

DeidreFR5

We have terminated employees and hoped they received UI. Not often, but it has happened. In one case, a long term employee was trying to give great customer service, was flexible with our check holding policy, and the con artist made off with our money. She made a bad mistake and following our policy had to be terminated. But she didn't mean to do something bad, she was actually trying to show what a great bank we were.

Don D

I think, though, that you will have to agree that you did allow your personal emotions to get in the way of what might have been best for your employer. Unless you owned the business, I would think that you did not act in the best interest of the business if your emotions impacted a UI decision that proved negative for the company.





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

JM in ATL

To put everyone's curiosity to rest... The decision was not mine to make. It was the owner's and his wifes (the co-owner). The employee was with the company for about 8 months. She was a receptionist who was not qualified to be a receptionist, but she was also the owners personal babysitter.

They decided that they did not need her administrative services any longer after she did about her 5th no call no show, but did not want to lose her personal services, so they requested that we allow her to recieve unemployment.

I completed the questionnaire, UI denied her based off of my answers, even though I specifically stated that we would not contest the awarding of benefits. The company is also paying for 3 months COBRA as part of her severance.

The owner suggested she appeal the UI determination and a hearing was scheduled. I was hoping that a non-participation in the hearing would allow for benefits, but as stated it would be better to participate and convince the UI board to allow benefits. I have recieved determination on the hearing and she is allowed benefits.

The company will allow UI on employees they terminate that they like. Such as a good employee who just couldn't do the technical work as needed.

My loyalty one way or another has nothing to do with how this was handled. It wasn't even my decision - I just got the exciting opportunity to carry out their every wish and demand. Trust me, loyalty aside, a greener pasture is exactly what I need.

stilldazed

Ah, the joys of working for a family-owned business.

Sounds like your loyalty may be to do what is fair, which may not be what you are getting a chance to do. If I'm not mistaken, I sense some bitterness or frustration or something running between the lines of your post. Now is a pretty good time to be looking for a job. Scope out the field and see what you find. It usually doesn't cost anything to look (unless you enlist a recruiting agency), and you may be better off for it.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-10-05 AT 10:38AM (CST)[/font][br][br]"The company will allow UI on employees they terminate that they like. Such as a good employee who just couldn't do the technical work as needed."

A claimant who fits that description will almost always draw. Unemployment Insurance decisions do not fault claimants who 'just couldn't do the work'. You needn't do anything special to ensure that they draw. Just honestly state that you terminated due to an inability to master the task.

But, this goes a little deeper than company owners wanting someone to draw and giving you the assignment to make that happen. I would remind all of us that giving false testimony in a sworn hearing is not ethical and may have certain implications beyond that. It is one thing to refuse to submit paperwork to the claims office (not illegal) but another to swear to tell the truth and not do so. I'm not preachin' here, just reminding us that there are creative ways to get results without lying under oath.

pork1

OH YOU SMOOTH WRITING DEVIL, IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT YOU MOST CERTAINLY DO EAT LOTS OF PORK!

My favorite is the Bryan Foods package pork loin in the hickory pack. Roasted slowly over a low heat and a few "bloody marys" on the side in the cold of winter cannot be beat, unless you are slow roasting with a few cold brews on the side in the heat of the summer night. Now that is a match made in God's world.

PORK