Unemployment - can he collect?

jriley

Hello,

If an employee was hired as a temporary basis, to fill in for a permanent employee who went out on leave, can the temporary employee collect unemployment after their assignment ends? They were employed for approximately 4 months.

The company’s intention was never to hire them on a permanent basis.

Thanks!

Jennifer

TN HR

This all depends on their base earnings during the preceding qualifying quarters. If they were employed full-time in a similar earnng capacity prior to you then the "hit" to your account will be slight. Under TN's system my charge would be miniscule and could even result in an non-charge.

Gene

jriley

He was out of work for 3 months prior to joining our company, however, he worked for many years at his previous company. He did resign from that company (he didn't file or collect unemployment then). Is he legally able to collect now?

pork1

jriley: It would appear to me that he certainly has a right to apply, and as TN HR wrote it all depends on work history and ability to qualify. Unless you terminated the employee for "cause" or the ee "voluntarily quit" he would possibly qualify and your time of service will impact on his total earnings and his potential to collect and some portion of his collection become a part of your premiums.

HRinFL

You want to look at the Chargeability % listed on the paperwork you received from the agency, which should be listed somewhere around the amount of his wages credits. As Gene stated, this will more than likely show less than 100%. While he did not file for UC benefits at his previous employer, if they were an employer during the base period, they have some liability as well. You may want to look at your contract with the temp agency to see if there is an indemnity clause in it. Bad news is...you may be responsible for a percentage of the temps benefits.

lorrie

Everything I have read says that if we hire them as OUR employee, temporary or not, then we are liable for unemployment. Since their benefit is based on the 4 previous quarters (not counting the most recent) then our exposure is limited, but not eliminated. Using a temp agency can be more expensive, but it eliminates the unemployment exposure.

LivindonSouth

It's really not possible to say without thoroughly reviewing the entire history that the UI claimstaker will take and review. Then the benefits department takes the analysis prepared by the claimstaker and makes a determination and issues a qualification or disqualification letter to both parties. The employer's intention to not ever make him a full time employee is not relevant. The relevant facts, as have been pointed to are: wages in the first three of the last four completed calendar quarters (or whatever state law is), the reason he is out of work at the moment (fault or no fault), his ability and availability for work at the moment, what he tells the claimstaker about his willingness to seek work, his prompt and continued weekly filing of claims and maybe a thing or two I overlooked. If you are not in his base period, which you might not be, you should not be impacted. However, if he were to file a claim nine or so months from now after losing another job, you may well find that you are suddenly and magically in the base period and your account is being charged.

As George Carlson says, "It's a mystery."

pork1

And when you receive your notice of application and the granting of UI, but not chargeable to your company because you are not part of their muscle, then take it to a hearing and fight the granting or like Don says don't be surprised to find your company is chargeable later on down the road. It happened to us and the ee had only worked right at 7 weeks when we let him go for lack of am ability to be trained. He was considered as not at fault, a lay off, because we did not appeal and have a hearing to present all of the evidence of bad attitude, attendance, and failed to learn. We appealed the granting of UI and got a hearing, but the hearing officer would not allow one new piece of evidence the decision was based on the evidence already presented at the first claim determination. We the employer had no new evidence to present as enhancement of the previous evidence, which was zero. So we lost, but it want happen again.

PORK

lhill

The Texas Workforce Commission says that the employee may file for unemployment and probably will receive it, even though it was a temporary arrangement with the knowledge and consent of both parties.

Linda

jriley

Thanks so much everyone. I'm usually just a reader, for many years, as you can see I haven't posted much.

This information has been helpful.

p.s. We didn't use an agency, he was hired directly from our online posting.

System

What everyone has posted is absolutely on the mark, and there is nothing more to add to their input. However, I will say that fighting unemployment claims is one of the most frustrating aspects I, and many other HR folks, must endure. The State UE agancies are just hell-bent on giving unemployment dollars to the most undeserving people (i.e terminated for cause, attendance, etc.) It used to be that unemployment benefits were given to people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own (layoff, plant closures, etc), which I fully support. Now, unless you have all your i's perfectly dotted and t's impeccably crossed, the state will hand out money to slackers who don't want to work and can get away with collecting UE dollars. And the state agencies just keep giving handouts to these hacks and in doing so, have created a secondary welfare system. It makes me want to puke. But I'm not bitter,.... honest....

jriley

LOL, I enjoyed that.

p.s. Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel....

System

If I did that, the Forum gestapo would surely be after me...

LivindonSouth

Thankfully that is not the case in Mississippi. The Unemployment Insurance (what's UE?) regulations are very employer-friendly and the hearings are more than fair. I've lost one (1) UI appeal out of hundreds in the past ten years and that was a telephone hearing with a California Appeals Officer. Who would have guessed?

mushroomHR

Very well put. And in Ohio we have the same scenario with our workers' compensation system.

E Wart

I agree with you Vphr. GA has gotten very good with UI and very employer oriented. However, I do have challenges with TX and CO. (This month we have a CO employee who announced to Manager she no longer wanted to do her job because she didn't like her Supv. (I agree that I wouldn't want to work for this person, but she wanted the job originally and has worked there for 3 yrs.) She basically walked off the job. We tried to help her and told her if she would continue doing her job and got through, we would have her work in another area for the rest of the time. She filed for UI and they said we cut her hours and gave her UI (for walking off the job!!) Figure that.
E Wart

System

Georgia has been fairly reasonable, but Alabama and Florida continue to amaze me with their stupidity. Let me quote you a recent appeals decision out of Florida. (The facts are that the claimant voluntarily quit, then after the fact, alleges her supervisor cussed at her). Here's what the appeals officer stated in his written decision: "The record shows that the claimant quit her job after she felt that she had been verbally abused by her supervisor. The employer presented only hearsay evidence as to the events that took place, when it was alleged that the claimant was filling out job applications for other employment while still on the job. The claimant's testimony was credible in that she denied that report..."
So, in other words, our testimony was hearsay (even though we presented eyewitness testimony through affadavidts), but the claimants testimony was credible, because she denied it. If I could, I'd let you read the whole decision, but it has barf stains all over it. This has been a typical pattern in these states: believe anything the claimant has to offer, while employers are deemed to be nothing short of lying, cheating, evildoers who want nothing more than to deny unemployment to these poor downtrodden and abused workers. It's a bunch of hogwash...

LivindonSouth

Looking at that (partial) decision objectively, I would have to say that if it was someone other than the supervisor who testified that the supervisor did not curse at her, then it was indeed hearsay. If the separation had nothing to do with allegedly filling out applications on company time, then that had no place in the hearing or the decision. But, again, if testimony was given by someone other than a witness to the filling out of applications, that too is hearsay. There is always an appeal avenue beyond the initial appeal hearing.

System

we had written affadavidts from witnesses to her filling out job apps (which, by the way, had nothing to do with her resignation, but merely the decision to not allow her to work out her notice period) She also tesitified she never recv'd an employee handobbok, even though we presented her signed acknowldgement stating she received and understood the handbook. it goes on and on, but my point is basically the unemployment officers invaribly give full weight and creibility to the claimant, but absolutely none to the employer. maybe it's much better in Mississippi, but I invite you to spend some time in Alabama to get a flavor for the unequal playing field be compete on. I know, waaaaaahhh!

pork1

NO, I've taken "HOGWASH" to the next level four times and have won three out of the four. The fourth was the most recent as posted above under Don's post. It might be "Bull @3^t" but HOGWASH is pretty good stuff for feeding and making things all the better!

PORK

LivindonSouth

PoRk: What you post about your lost hearing in post number 17 can probably be explained this way: Mississippi law states that no testimony supplementary to that already offered by the employer or claimant may be introduced at the hearing. The hearing will be held and decided based only on the facts already in evidence prior to the hearing. If you attempted to add information relative to performance or attendance and you had already said the employee was let go because of an inability to learn the processes of your company, then the claimant is going to always be eligible. In Mississippi, an employee who is discharged for not learning the job or not being able to master tasks is considered out of work through no fault of his own and is ruled eligible if otherwise eligible (monetarily etc.)