MA - hourly employee, employer plans to stop paying but not let go

[reason4yourself]

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

This is an unusual situation. Hired last Fall as an hourly employee for a project that is best described as experimental - not part of any specific department, autonomous, and with a throwaway title that has nothing to do with the actual role. I can only assume the title was provided for HR purposes.

Received an email today that explained that as of the end of May the company will discontinue my "draw". Nothing about being fired. In fact the email was quite nice overall regarding my effort on the project (it came from the executive who hired me).

I'm not a commissioned employee. I've had to fill out payroll timecards since taking the position. So I'm not sure why he used the language regarding a draw as if I am a commissioned employee receiving monthly advances. Not a single word about letting me go, or about my position and whether I am expected to simply stop working and stop submitting timecards.

In all my years I've never encountered anything like this so I'm not sure how to react.

Before I have a conversation with him, I'd like to know if any of you have advice about the best way to approach this. If they're not firing me, but not planning to pay me either, how would I even qualify for unemployment while I seek a new job?

Can a firm in MA legally keep someone on the books and reduce his pay and responsibilities to zero? I feel like I'm the Milton character in the movie Office Space.

Thanks,

R4Y

 

[LdiJ]

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

This is an unusual situation. Hired last Fall as an hourly employee for a project that is best described as experimental - not part of any specific department, autonomous, and with a throwaway title that has nothing to do with the actual role. I can only assume the title was provided for HR purposes.

Received an email today that explained that as of the end of May the company will discontinue my "draw". Nothing about being fired. In fact the email was quite nice overall regarding my effort on the project (it came from the executive who hired me).

I'm not a commissioned employee. I've had to fill out payroll timecards since taking the position. So I'm not sure why he used the language regarding a draw as if I am a commissioned employee receiving monthly advances. Not a single word about letting me go, or about my position and whether I am expected to simply stop working and stop submitting timecards.

In all my years I've never encountered anything like this so I'm not sure how to react.

Before I have a conversation with him, I'd like to know if any of you have advice about the best way to approach this. If they're not firing me, but not planning to pay me either, how would I even qualify for unemployment while I seek a new job?

Can a firm in MA legally keep someone on the books and reduce his pay and responsibilities to zero? I feel like I'm the Milton character in the movie Office Space.

Thanks,

RFY

Is your position something that could be commissioned? Probably the best way to approach him is to explain that you are confused about what the email means.

 

[reason4yourself]

Is your position something that could be commissioned? Probably the best way to approach him is to explain that you are confused about what the email means.

Hi LdiJ,

It's definitely not a position that would ordinarily be commissioned. It was R&D for a potential new service that they've apparently decided not to offer. I will definitely ask him to explain his email.

 

[commentator]

The minute you are not being paid, file for unemployment insurance. Describe the situation to the agency. They will doubtless give you an initial decision saying you are not qualified for unemployment if the company has not been paying your unemployment taxes in.

But if they have not, and you have been working for them as you describe, APPEAL this decision, and state your working situation, explain how you have been working for them, who has been supervising you etc. and they may be found in violation of Maine's unemployment payroll tax laws for you. If this is the case, you will be able to begin drawing benefits, and the system will go after this employer for trying to avoid paying unemployment taxes on someone who should have been classified as a regular employee.

As far as whether they are firing you or have not more work for you, whatever they tell you, that is not the determining factor for unemployment. If you are out of work through no fault of your own, not based on any actions on your part, no warning about performance, no indication that you are not performing up to par and that is the reason they are terminating your employment you need to file for unemployment benefits immediately.

We assume you were a regular W-2, tax paying, take out employee. If not, if you were cash under the table or something similar, still file for benefits. They have been treating you like a regular employee, and it sounds like after the end of may they will have not more work for you. This means you should file for unemployment benefits. You are out of work through no fault of your own. The employer does not get to say whether or not you qualify, and may from the sound of this be trying to evade their tax paying regular unemployment responsibilities.

 

[reason4yourself]

Thank you for the additional details commentator.

I've been a W-2 hourly employee-at-will since last September. ADP handles payroll and has been deducting taxes. I was hired specifically for this project -- their plan was to grow the service into a new line of business. My assumption is that the market they were planning to enter isn't quite what they expected and they've now simply changed their minds about pursuing it any further.

But what an odd email. Rather than a "we have to let you go" it was a "we're going to end your 'draw' at the end of the month".

I decided to post to the forum to better understand my options prior to obtaining clarification from the gentleman who hired me. So this has been very helpful, thank you.

R4Y

 

[cbg]

I suspect you're going to find that this is their admittedly odd way of telling you that you've been laid off.

 

[davew128]

and they may be found in violation of Maine's unemployment payroll tax laws for you.

OP is in Massachusetts not Maine.

 

[commentator]

OP is in Massachusetts not Maine.

Oops! Get my northeastern states mixed, sometimes! The advice is still the same. No matter what term the employer uses for you don't have a job anymore, file for unemployment as soon as you are no longer working, even if they tell you you are still "on contract" or they are keeping you "on the payroll" or "on call" (the key being whether or not you are doing work and being paid for it in a given week), file and tell the agency exactly what you were told by your employer (Remember, the employer does not get to say whether or not you get unemployment) and let them sort it out. If you're a W-2 employee, you should definitely be considered out of work through no fault of your own, and unemployment taxes have been paid in on you by a covered employer.

 

[cbg]

FYI, a former employer of mine has kept me "on the payroll" for over three years since I resigned, since I occasionally on the weekends fill in when someone is sick or on vacation. I think I've worked three shifts in that span of time, roughly one per year. But still being "on the payroll" doesn't mean I still work there.

 

[reason4yourself]

FYI, a former employer of mine has kept me "on the payroll" for over three years since I resigned, since I occasionally on the weekends fill in when someone is sick or on vacation. I think I've worked three shifts in that span of time, roughly one per year. But still being "on the payroll" doesn't mean I still work there.

This is precisely the feeling I got as I read the email...I'll be "on the payroll" but not actually working. On Monday I have an appointment to speak with him in-person to get clarification -- I'd rather in-person than phone or email.

But it's good to know I can pursue unemployment, and let the company deal with explaining its intent, should I be unable to secure a new position for June 1st. Thank you cbg, commentator and LdiJ for your insight - I appreciate it very much.