California Unemployment Claim Denied, Filing Appeal - Need Help :\

[Theaetetus]

I resigned my position at my most recent employer because I was so unsatisfied with the working conditions that I felt I had no recourse. I first applied for UI in July 2009, and just had my telephone interview last week. I had to move out of state because I could no longer afford Bay Area rent, esp. with no UI coming in. And now I'm holding my claim denial letter and an appeal form, but I have no idea what would be most effective to put on it. *stumped*

Here's the (abbrev) story...

---------------------------------------

I was employed by a single employer from November 2006 through June 2009, and from April 2007 onward as a manager. Very happy, until the bitter end. With my last promotion in early 2008, my job description said I would work "38 hours, or up to 40 during peak periods", but I found myself working 45-60 hrs week after week, straining my relationship.

1. In Apr 2009, my sup's sup sent a sales "trainer". Both my sup and my EE's told me they overheard him using inappropriate sales techniques to drive sales against company policy. When I informed the sup's sup (since sup feared retribution), she outright denied it was happening in front of a witness, became defensive, and said it was not the first report of it she'd received. She openly said she'd take no action, and I later discovered it was her sister's fiance. Since she had broken numerous policies hiring, training and supervising him, I think she was afraid I'd go higher. I was afraid that if I did, she'd fire me before anything was done. So I did nothing out of fear of retribution (should have listened to Sup!).

2. In May 2009, I was on a conference call. I was asked to explain a procedure which my sup's sup had supervised many times and never corrected me on. When I described exactly what I did, sup's sup harshly reprimanded in front of my peers for using incorrect methods. These methods were never trained or written, I had used since becoming a mgr, and had never been corrected until now. I knew it was retribution, but couldn't prove it.

3. I was getting married in Jun 2009. We had picked the date in Nov 2008 and I started submitting my PTO requests in Dec 2008. They sat in my sup's inbox ("I'm working on it", or "Can't find your form, resubmit" every time) until he quit in May 2009, approving the week before he left. Sup's sup now had all his files on her PC too, and could see my vaca at any time. I get a nasty call a week before the wedding from sup's sup, claiming she was unaware the entire time and I need to find other mgrs to replace ALL of my shifts before the next day. Stressed until the end if I'd get time off for my own wedding, and left for it not knowing if I'd be fired when I came back because she's now so pissed at me.

4. Sup's sup and sup's sup's sup (mouthful) come for surprise visit in late Jun 2009. Sup position now vacant, I'm in an acting capacity. They make me do a web conf in the office instead of my duties and say they'll handle my work until its over. Sup's sup uses a Master Key, pulls the lock barrel from the door, and puts it on my desk saying "it came right out, it'll go right back in, fix it later". Having no master key (upper mgmt only), I vainly try twice to fix it before going home. Had to come back twice to fix it, failing each time. Kept leaving messages that we need a locksmith. Sup's sup never answers, except one call back telling me "no locksmiths", fix it myself, and stay until its fixed. I'm stuck in the store overnight because I can't leave and the door wont lock. Shifts worked were 8a-6p, 9-9:30p, 10p-7:30a, and 4p-10p the next day. The next day, sup's sup comes to fix it, and my EE's tell me she's infuriated with me, because she had to call a locksmith and bring her master key. Fearing I'll be fired even more now. *facepalm*

...and much, much more. Horrible conditions towards the end.

---------------------------------------

During my telephone interview, EDD was informed of #1/2/4 in detail. Interviewer seemed shocked at all of it. Now I get my decision letter, which reads:

"You quit your last job with _____ because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit. After considering available information, the department finds that you do not meet the legal requirements for payment of benefits. Section 1256 provides - an individual is disqualified if the department finds he voluntarily quit his most recent work without good cause or was discharged for misconduct from his most recent work."

I take this to mean that the administrator agrees that I had good reason, but did not expend all "reasonable solutions", so I fail to have "good cause". Is this correct? If so, how do I prove that I expended all of these solutions, or did not have them to begin with?

[Pattymd]

You think somebody is going to read all that? Cut it down by at least half (if not more) and maybe you'll get some responses. In your editing, make it clear what the "intolerable" working conditions were and leave out most of the other stuff; it's probably irrelevant.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Pattymd

You think somebody is going to read all that? Cut it down by at least half (if not more) and maybe you'll get some responses. In your editing, make it clear what the "intolerable" working conditions were and leave out most of the other stuff; it's probably irrelevant.

Chopped it wayyyyy down. The backstory was reduced by 2/3 or so. Shortened into and ending questions as much as I could without compromising vital info.

Does it look any better? TIA for your help... I suppose I hadn't realized how massively long-winded it was.

[Pattymd]

Unfortunately, what you and I and 99% of the rest of the world thinks may be a good "reason" does not necessarily make it a "qualifying" reason under the law.

However, look for a PM from me.

[CAIW]

I didn't see the org post, but this one is just a novelette. There is SO much rehoric in there, well, I did not read word for word either.

I take this to mean that the administrator agrees that I had good reason, but did not expend all "reasonable solutions", so I fail to have "good cause". Is this correct? If so, how do I prove that I expended all of these solutions, or did not have them to begin with?

You NEED documentation of the steps you took to resolve the issues you are claiming as hostile. A diary would help if you had kept track of each day/time something occured you claim as sufficient for the final action you to... quitting.
Besides California being an ''at will'' employment, either party can terminate their relationship at any time with out cause. "Business decisions'' are made daily...one or the other party isn't always happy.

I think she was afraid I'd go higher. I was afraid that if I did, she'd fire me before anything was done. So I did nothing out of fear of retribution (should have listened to Sup!).


You quit your last job with _____ because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit.

There you have it.
The thing between ER's and EE's is that the EE"s would like to run the show... in the end, they find the ER is already doing that.
You cannot legislate how any ER' runs a business.

File your dispute with the EDD/ALJ for a hearing, in the meantime... get about 90% of this out of what you intend to present to support your claim you are entitled to UI benefits. If you stand in front of a ALJ with ''she said, he said, my EE"s told me...".... you might as well spend the time you have now searching for a job to go to. W/o UI having been paid.
Sorry, I'd like to see everyone get all the benefits they are entitled to under the law... even with hearings. IMHO... you are not likely to be in that group.

[Theaetetus]

Typed a message, but somehow it poofed. :\

Originally Posted by CAIW

You NEED documentation of the steps you took to resolve the issues you are claiming as hostile. A diary would help if you had kept track of each day/time something occured you claim as sufficient for the final action you to... quitting.

I now wish I had kept a journal. I had placed enough trust in the company that I didn't feel I needed to continually CYA, but apparently it was misplaced. Lesson learned.

Besides California being an ''at will'' employment, either party can terminate their relationship at any time with out cause. "Business decisions'' are made daily...one or the other party isn't always happy.

Entirely correct. There have been times I did not see eye-to-eye with an ER, or one of my subs didn't agree with the ER, and I understand that comes as a cost of doing business. I have intentionally excluded these occasions from my claim and appeal, focusing on items that I feel either violated my rights as an EE or created an overly-hostile work environment.

For example, #3 appears to be a deliberate attempt to block my access to accrued PTO as spelled out in my job description. I could have sworn I read a law for #4 that had required a set number of hours between shifts of those lengths, but now I find nothing. Perhaps it was written in a previous contract and I've muddled my wits.

There you have it. The thing between ER's and EE's is that the EE"s would like to run the show... in the end, they find the ER is already doing that. You cannot legislate how any ER' runs a business.

Nor do I want to "legislate" how an ER runs their business. By this, I assume you mean the conflict of interest from the sup? I imagine there's no specific law regarding unfairly enforcing an EE handbook policy on one EE and not another.

File your dispute with the EDD/ALJ for a hearing, in the meantime... get about 90% of this out of what you intend to present to support your claim you are entitled to UI benefits. If you stand in front of a ALJ with ''she said, he said, my EE"s told me...".... you might as well spend the time you have now searching for a job to go to. W/o UI having been paid.
Sorry, I'd like to see everyone get all the benefits they are entitled to under the law... even with hearings. IMHO... you are not likely to be in that group.

Seems that I would have been (relatively speaking) better off discussing the hostile work environment with my HR department and filing suit for wrongful termination when she fired me in retaliation. *sigh*

[CAIW]

Seems that I would have been (relatively speaking) better off discussing the hostile work environment with my HR department and filing suit for wrongful termination when she fired me in retaliation. *sigh*

I now wish I had kept a journal.

Claims such as you are making are generally based on issues that occur over a period of time. At the point, and there must have been one, where you initially began to feel the ''pressure'' for lack of a better word, would have been the time you should have started to document the goings on around you.

With out any sigificant evidence, ie the diary, you have little to nothing to support your claim to 'wrongfuf termination', not even a WC 'stress/psych' claim, or discrimination/harrassment. It would be one word against the other. And, again Calif is an at will employment state, you have the burden of proof in such a claim.

Nor do I want to "legislate" how an ER runs their business. By this, I assume you mean the conflict of interest from the sup? I imagine there's no specific law regarding unfairly enforcing an EE handbook policy on one EE and not another.

It means, outside of ADA/EEOC/WC and any other state/federal legislation, you cannot 'legislate' how an ER conducts their business...ie. hours open, ER provided benefits, ''uniforms'' or how a EE handbook is written. You can ensure that all EE are treated similiar manner.
The rules may have changed, but the last time I knew... PTO/paid time off, and/or vacation time is to be taken at the convenience and descretion of the ER. As these are ER provided benefits...the ER makes those rules, and calls the shots on calendar.

During my telephone interview, EDD was informed of #1/2/4 in detail. Interviewer seemed shocked at all of it.

I'm certainly not attempting to minimize your situation...however I'd have to imagine the folks at EDD/UI have heard just about every story out there... including those akin to yours. Maybe your counselor was a 'newbie', or playing nice and letting you off your steam.
I think, If you end up at a hearing with EDD/ALJ, you keep your testimony to the point, with a little ''novelette'' like you post here. Unless the ALJ asks ''what was the problem that led up to your resignation?" Keep this a simple as possible, no 'he said' 'she said', other employees heard...just the facts ma'am.

I notice Patty sent you a PM... I dont think I need offer more here...
Good luck to you.

[HR/DisMgr]

One final thought--you indicated your supervisor quit in May 2009. Would he be interested in appearing at your hearing as a witness? If he is, he can testify how you attempted to resolve situation #1 and the company's attitude or response to your concerns. If you can show the judge you did attempt to resolve the situation, you are more likely to win your claim.

Regardless, I would appeal that decision and request a hearing in front of a judge. Some are extremely liberal and if you appear and the employer does not, you will have a change to tell your story uncorroborated. It may or may not work.

In your hearing, stay unemotional, stick to the facts, answer all questions as truthfully and accurately as possible and bring whatever documentation you have. Even if it is your journal or your many vacation requests or the locksmith bill...the judges love independent documentation.

Good luck.