Unemployment - Fact Finding

[Jcams46]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I was a recruiter for a trucking company and was let go from my position 2 weeks ago. The details around the event were i had an initial 90 day review which everyone has and in the review they had noted my performance wasnt quite up to what they wanted so far and werent sure if the job was a right fit for me yet. It was standard review stuff outlining what i needed to work on and that they wanted me to get my recruiting numbers up to a certain range , not to miss any days within a 2 month period and then some sort of further action/meeting would take place at that time. I asked my manager during the meeting that if i didnt hit that certain number what could happen, and it was pretty lofty so i asked what the details were. She said we will see when that point rolls around but as long as im making progress i should be good. I put in the extra effort and time and raised my numbers but about 2.5 months later i was called into the office and the manager/hr rep said that because i wasnt at what they wanted they would be letting me go.

She thanked me for my effort and as i was gathering my stuff told me she would write me a letter of recommendation,etc, and that they wouldnt challenge me if i filed for unemployment. Well i received a letter today from iowa workforce development about doing a fact finding interview because the issue has to be resolved : discharged. I imagine this means they are contesting my unemployment. Is there any advice/do i have a shot at collecting? I was under the assumption after she told me that i would be ok to file that i wouldnt run into any problems but here i am. Thanks.

 

[Beth3]

Well i received a letter today from iowa workforce development about doing a fact finding interview because the issue has to be resolved : discharged. I imagine this means they are contesting my unemployment.

The UC office does an investigation and makes their own determination as to whether a person lost their job for a reason that would allow benefits. They do that whether an employer is contesting or not.

Is there any advice/do i have a shot at collecting? If the circumstances of your separation are as you described, then you will have no problem being awarded UC benefits.

I was under the assumption after she told me that i would be ok to file that i wouldnt run into any problems but here i am. There are no problems; this is just a routine inquiry regarding the circumstances if your termination. Relax.

 

[Jcams46]

Thanks for the reply, i am just a little curious since this is a first for me. I just wanted to make sure i was prepared for everything so i called the local workforce office to ask if they normally do it or if they were contesting it and he made it sound like the former employer was the one contesting it. But your saying they typically do this fact finding with employer/employee if someone was let go?

 

[cbg]

EVERY time someone applies for UI, the UI office does an investigation, at the very least to contacting the employer to see if their answer to "why did the employee leave" is the same as the employee's. They never, ever, ever, ever, ever just take the employee's word for it. Regardless of whether the employer contests or not, this is ALWAYS done. Relax. From what you have posted, there's no reason you shouldn't be approved, but the UI office does have to dot their i's and cross their t's first.

 

[swalsh411]

Doesn't matter. Eligibility rules are the same whether the employer is contestesting or unemployment is doing their own investigation.

 

[Jcams46]

Thanks for the responses. It makes sense they wouldnt just take someones word, but i had known people at a previous company that didnt have to take the step of a fact finding interview/being contested so i was a little confused. But it sounds like this is pretty normal that they hold the claim up for fact finding interview.

 

[cbg]

You may not have been aware of what UI was doing for someone else, but I assure you that UI did SOME kind of investigation on their claims!

This is perfectly normal. Don't worry about it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

If your previous employer handles your UI claim, like some do of drivers that have been let go, they will have a creative reason why you are no longer employed there and it will be up to the state to decide. Hopefully you worked for a reputable company.

 

[Jcams46]

EVERY time someone applies for UI, the UI office does an investigation, at the very least to contacting the employer to see if their answer to "why did the employee leave" is the same as the employee's. They never, ever, ever, ever, ever just take the employee's word for it. Regardless of whether the employer contests or not, this is ALWAYS done. Relax. From what you have posted, there's no reason you shouldn't be approved, but the UI office does have to dot their i's and cross their t's first.

Wouldnt the letter from the iowa workforce saying they are going to do the interview signify that they did contact the former employer and the employer put discharged so they are contesting something?

 

[commentator]

What it is worth betting is that the employer, when contacted, said that you were "let go due to performance issues" in some sort of way shape or form. Which is exactly what happened. The only thing that they would not "contest" would be if someone were let go due to a lack of work on the part of the company, a down sizing, position eliminated, etc.

To get unemployment insurance a person must be out of work through no fault of their own. When you were discharged due to performance issues, let go during your 90 probationary period, told to leave because the work you did was not up to standard, whatever, then it is going to be a claim which will require a decision on your eligibility. REGARDLESS of what the employer says to them otherwise.

What they will be determining, and what you need to memorize, and recite freely in any and all contact with the unemployment office and the ajudicator who will be doing your "fact finding" is this: "I did the job to the best of my abilities" That is it.

How the unemployment system looks at it, if you showed up every day and you did your best to learn the process, and your work did not satisfy the employer, or meet the standards they had set, then it was not due to your misconduct.

If you didn't show up for work a lot, goofed off a lot while you were there, refused to learn the procedures when they tried to teach you and were found sleeping when you were supposed to be working, that's misconduct. No unemployment. If you got frustrated by your lack of productivity and quit the job, then you wouldn't be approved to draw benefits either, as your leaving was by your choice, not the employers.

But under the circumstances you describe, just explain to the fact finding ajudicator what happened, how you did your best, but your performance did not meet their standards and so they made the decision to let you go. You shouldn't have any problem being approved under these circumstances.

Be making your weekly certifications, though your decision has not been made yet. Eventually, you should be approved and back paid for every week you have been out of work since filing the claim.

If on the off chance you were denied benefits, this is still only the initial decision, and you would have the right to file an appeal and to have a hearing. But performance discharges are pretty easy to get approved, because to be denied, there has to be actual misconduct, not just a lack of talent or speed or ability at doing this job.

 

[cyjeff]

I want to make two points...

In the future, NEVER ask what will happen if you don't live up to the performance standards the company feels you should meet. It displays a lack of confidence in your abilities.

In the current economic environment, many state unemployment offices are doing more investigations than ever before. Don't sweat it.

 

[cbg]

I think you do not fully understand how the process works. The employer truthfully saying that you were discharged does not mean that they are contesting. What were you expecting them to do when the UI office contacted them - lie? Or did you not realize that they would be contacted at all?