Unemployment and Labor Laws

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY
QUESTION: My wife was fired and started to collect unemployment. Benefits stopped after one month because the employer told the labor dept that she had QUIT. She appealled, and had to wait 3 months for a hearing. The Judge, (angerly) after reviewing all the evidence, agreed that they FIRED her without cause, and her benefits were reinstated. 2 months later the benefits stopped again without anyone informing us why. After several days of nonstop attempts to contact the NYS dept of labor, they said that they received information, from that same employer, that a job offer was sent through a certified letter, to which there was no reply. The labor dept and the employer saw this non response to THAT letter as a refusal to a job offer. The employer also says that they tried calling her with a job offer several times (they didn't). After this was told to her, we found out that my elderly father ,who is a neighbor at a DIFFERENT address, signed for the certified letter and never informed us. It is signed with his name. We again asked the dept of labor if that mattered, and they said "no" , that "it doesn't matter who signed for it, as long as it was signed for". Since her initial firing occured, she would probably not be able to work THERE anyway. We have lost a vehicle due to the financial hardship it caused, and she is looking for work closer to home and on the same route that I have to drive. I think, that after everything that has happened, she shouldn't be forced to go back to work where it is sure to be a hostile work place. What IS the law regarding certified letters? Is she obglitated to take a job back at the same company even though her ability to work THERE has changed solely due to there wrongful initial firing? Is non response to job offer, regardless of the circumstances why, considered a job refusal? Any advice or law info on any of these question will be greatly appreciated.

The post office by law has to deliver mail to the address provided, and they did. They didn't just happen to deliver mail for your wife to her father-in-law's address. Her employer had to have been given it. The moment your father signed for the certified letter, he accepted responsibility for it. Do you want to go to court and argue that since your father is elderly, he couldn't be expected to understand that he should have told the postman that he had the wrong address and not signed for the mail? Or that because he's elderly, it could be assumed that he'd forget to give the mail to your wife? I don't think so.

I'm assuming that you have an answering machine that's always on, and that's how you know no one with the company tried to call you.

Your wife is within her rights to decide that she doesn't want to go back to work under the circumstances, but that would be the end of her unemployment benefits. She can't have it both ways.

So lets say that she did get the certified letter from my father. Forget about that part.(answer machine IS always on)

She didn't re-apply for a job with them. It's impossible at this time(and at the time of the unreceived letter). So if I have a business, and I fire someone, and due to that unjust proven in court firing, they lose their ability to work anywhere around the same travel distance (1 hour and she lost her car since then) , if i offer them a job a few months later,they have no choice but to accept it, or lose their benefits? This whole thing seems unfair. Fire someone, try and hire them back 2 months later, NO MATTER WHAT they have to go back or lose their benefits? AND also are you saying that non response to a job offer, that was not seeked out, is the same as a job refusal? I appreciate your response to these questions, even though they're not the answers I expected . Dannyny80

If they offered her the job back, yes she has to take it or she will lose her benefits.

Does it matter then, that the job they "offered" IS NOT the same job she had previously, and is the afternoon shift instead the morning shift she had?

No, it doesn't. If they offer her work and she turns it down, she loses her eligibility for benefits. It does NOT have to be the same job and it does NOT have to be the same shift. This isn't FMLA and the rule about "equivalent positions" does not apply. If they offer her suitable work, (and the ONLY one who gets to decide if it is suitable work or not is the UI office) and she turns it down, she is no longer eligible for benefits. Period. The state is not going to pay her to wait until a job she likes comes along.

Nope. Offered work is offered work. She has to take it, or she loses her benefits.

In California, and probably in many other states, you have to present proof each week that you're actively seeking employment in order to continue receiving benefits. If you're offered a job, you're expected to take it, even if it means starting work at 7:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m., the transit time is 45 minutes longer, you'll be paid less, etc.

well in michigan it is suitable full time work that has to be offered, a job that pays less than 70% of the original job is not suitable, if the travel to distance is 2x farther, not meaning 10 minutes to 20 minutes, but say 1/2 hr to 1hr, this also is not suitable full time work, dont know about new york, but you surely couldnt have a 25.00 hr job here in Michigan, and get recalled by the same employer for 8.00 per hour to scrub toilets...

While different states may have different definitons of "suitable work", the bottom line is that in all 50 states it is the STATE that makes the decision. Not the employee.

In all 50 states, turning down suitable work, whatever the state calls suitable work, is a disqualifier for benefits.

Thanks for all the responses. I guess everyone agrees that non-response to a certified letter with a job offer in it, for a job that she never applied for, is the same as denying a job offer? Thats what unemployment says. And thats the only reason they stopped benefits.

I agree with the state as well.