Former employer is playing head-games with me...

[Ultranothing]

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

Hi all,

For three years, I had been working for my employer in the medical transportation field. There was a sudden power-shift and restructuring of the company, some heads collided, and I found myself at the wrong end of the gun. I wasn't terminated, and I didn't technically "quit", but there were some problems that put me in limbo - specifically, that I had been taking home the company car every night to work routes in my local area, but new management decided that, because of some falsely-perceived deviations from company policy, that I was no longer allowed the privilege.

I filed for unemployment benefits, and listed the reason for separation as "lack of transportation", since I had been permitted to continue my employment, so long as I had someone drive me over five hundred miles per week to pick up the vehicle in the morning, and return it at night.

My employer subsequently fought against my unemployment benefits, claiming that I had "quit". I was denied, and am currently awaiting the status of my appeal.

Anyhow, six weeks had passed since my last day of work, and it has been very trying.

But this past week, I called my former manager. I told him that I had moved, that I had done some reflecting, and that I'd like to come back with a clean slate and a fresh start. He explained to me that I was welcome back, that a car was available in my new area, another employer was interested in switching shifts, and that I could take his car home. He told me to call him back later in the day to make arrangements to take receipt of the vehicle.

Later in the day, I called. Suddenly, he claims that the "livery" car is not available, and that I was welcome to take a "taxi" but could not take it home. This put me in the same position I was at six weeks ago - without transportation to work.

He told me that once a "livery" car became available, that I was welcome to take it home. He wasn't sure when that would be, but told me to call him "from day to day".

The next day, I called him and asked if he had any new information on the status of an available vehicle. Suddenly, he doesn't even have a NEED for a driver in my current location. He's now looking for a driver to work exclusively out of the area I had been originally assigned to, and from which I had just moved a few weeks ago in an effort to find new employment.

I told him that if he could secure a vehicle for my use, and if I could take it home, then I would be happy to move back to that area and get back to work.

He agreed. He asked me several times if this was a worthwhile endeavor for me, and I reiterated my intent each time. He called me later that day, and gave me instructions on exactly which car to pick up, and at what day and time.

I then packed my things again, and made the sixty mile journey up into the northwest corner of the state.

Today, a friend and I decided to see a show in another town. This town happens to be the same town where the company garage is located. I contacted the manager, and asked him if I could pick up the car later this evening, and bring it home to start work at 7, instead of having someone bring me there at 6am the next day.

"I have another plan," he said. He then proceeded to tell me about how he wants me to share a car with another driver who lives BACK in the town I'd just moved from in anticipation of his "old plan". Not only that, but sharing the car means I'd be left without transportation to work, which is the very essence of my need to take the car home.

I asked him why the car he told me to pick up was suddenly not available. He said something along the lines of "state inspections" which I know is a lie, having worked at the company for over three years and having my vehicle (that I took home every night) inspected every year.

Now he's telling me the same story he told me six weeks ago. If I can get a ride to the office every day to pick up a car, then I can come back to work - or I'll have to wait until a "new" livery car becomes available, which "could take weeks", he explains. That's thirty miles, one way. That's sixty miles in the morning, and sixty miles in the evening for someone else to have to drive, five days a week. That's still me with a lack of transportation to work.

Can they keep playing these games with me? Does there come a point where an employer has to make a final decision on the status of my employment? Can they "pretend" to want me back indefinitely without ever following through?

They say I "quit" six weeks ago. I say I didn't. Now, I'm in talks with the manager, and they're saying I'm still employed, if I can just get someone to drive over five hundred miles a week to get to work and back.

Does that change the game? Would it now be that much more clear to, say, the unemployment office, that I am not able to work due to a lack of transportation?

If you've read this, I appreciate your time and your thoughts.

 

[Hot Topic]

A lack of transportation? I don't "get" why you wouldn't be required to have your own vehicle or own means of transportation. Your getting to and from work should be your problem, not the employer's.

 

[justalayman]

They say I "quit" six weeks ago. I say I didn't. Now, I'm in talks with the manager, and they're saying I'm still employed, if I can just get someone to drive over five hundred miles a week to get to work and back.

so you have a job if you can get to work just like the other millions of people that drive to work. You not reporting to work IS you quitting, or at least refusing the work which will be treated the same by the UI office.

Does that change the game? Would it now be that much more clear to, say, the unemployment office, that I am not able to work due to a lack of transportation?

and that lack of transportation is not your employers responsibility. It is yours and you refusing to obtain your own transportation to get to work is you refusing to accept a job.

So, what is the problem with you buying a vehicle so you can get to work? It surely seems like that would solve all of your problems.

 

[commentator]

And since unemployment is based upon "able and available for work" including having appropriate transportation to get you to said job, I will bet you won't win anything on your unemployment, either.

When you filed, and the claim was denied, I'm sort of confused as to whether you actually have gone back to work for the company, back on the payroll and worked some. If so, then you'd have to stop making weekly certifications for unemployment, of course, and re-open this claim when you have once again stopped working for the company. And this time, they have you dead to rights. You quit. Maybe because, and you feel you have a valid reason, but I doubt if the unemployment office will feel this way.

 

[Beth3]

Your former employer doesn't have to hire you back and doesn't have to provide you a vehicle for your transportation to and from work. I have no idea why they've engaged in this back-and-forth dialogue with you but I think you should consider this a closed door. Pursue your UC claim and start looking for a new job.

You need to find a job that's accessible via public transportation or buy a car.

 

[violet9533]

ISSUE 1

The first issue on appeal is whether the employer discharged the claimant or he voluntarily left his employment with the employer.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

The claimant contended in his appeal to the referee and testified that he did not quit his job. However, he also testified that the employer had continuing work for him at the time he stopped working on January 7, 2010. He also testified that if the employer had continued to allow him to use the company car to drive to and from work, he would have continued to work for the employer. Therefore, this referee finds that he voluntarily left his job in January 2010.

ISSUE 2

The second issue on appeal is whether the claimant voluntarily left suitable without good cause attributable to the employer.

PROVISIONS OF LAW

Section 31-236(a)(2)(A)(i) of the General Statutes provides that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he has left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to his employer. The individual will be ineligible until he has earned at least ten times his benefit rate. No individual will be ineligible for benefits if he leaves suitable work for good cause attributable to his employer, including leaving as a result of changes in conditions created by the employer.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

The claimant quit his job in January 2010 because the employer took away the fringe benefit of allowing him to use the company car to drive to and from work. On January 12, 2010, office manager [name withheld] informed him that he could no longer take the company car home with him. The claimant had no other means of transportation to and from work that was reliable and that he could use in cold winter weather.

The board of review has held that any unilateral reduction of an individual's rate of pay, including fringe benefits such as vacation leave, sick leave, or medical insurance, gives the individual good cause attributable to the employer for leaving his job, even if the reduction is not a substantial one.
"In this most material aspect of the contract of employment, we do not believe that there can be a de minimis breach. Just as an employee has no right to insist upon an increase in salary -- no matter how insignificant -- the employer has no right to impose a decrease." Dorin v. Condenser and Heat Exchanger Services, Board Case No. 1059-88-BR (12/9/88).

An individual may be found to have had good cause for leaving a job where the employer institutes a change in the conditions of employment which the employer's past practices have clearly established, even though the conditions in question were not part of any written or defined policy. Valentine v. ****** Janitor Service Co., Board Case No. 287-BR-92 (3/27/92).

The employer allowed the claimant to use the company car to drive to and from work for almost four years. Therefore, this referee finds that his use of the car to transport himself to and from work was a condition of his employment that the employer unilaterally changed on January 12, 2010. His use of the company car to commute to and from work was a fringe benefit of his employment that the employer unilaterally took away from him. The employer did not offer him any other means of transportation to and from work and he had no other means of transportation to work that he could use in the winter. Therefore, this referee finds that when the employer stopped letting him use the company car to commute to and from work, it took away one of the fringe benefits of his employment and that the loss of that fringe benefit had a significant adverse effect upon him. Grenier v. Hall Truck Appraisal Service, Inc., Board Case No. 1505-BR-94 (3/31/95), Rybeck v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., Board Case No. 994-BR-98 (8/21/98), Marinelli v. Town of Mansfield, Board Case No. 2067-83-BR (12/5/83). Accordingly, this referee further finds that the loss of that fringe benefit gave him good cause for quitting his job. Therefore, he is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

DISPOSITION AND ORDER

The administrator's determination is reversed, and the claimant's appeal is sustained. Benefits are awarded, effective January 10, 2010, provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.

 

[Antigone*]

ISSUE 1

The first issue on appeal is whether the employer discharged the claimant or he voluntarily left his employment with the employer.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

The claimant contended in his appeal to the referee and testified that he did not quit his job. However, he also testified that the employer had continuing work for him at the time he stopped working on January 7, 2010. He also testified that if the employer had continued to allow him to use the company car to drive to and from work, he would have continued to work for the employer. Therefore, this referee finds that he voluntarily left his job in January 2010.

ISSUE 2

The second issue on appeal is whether the claimant voluntarily left suitable without good cause attributable to the employer.

PROVISIONS OF LAW

Section 31-236(a)(2)(A)(i) of the General Statutes provides that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he has left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to his employer. The individual will be ineligible until he has earned at least ten times his benefit rate. No individual will be ineligible for benefits if he leaves suitable work for good cause attributable to his employer, including leaving as a result of changes in conditions created by the employer.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

The claimant quit his job in January 2010 because the employer took away the fringe benefit of allowing him to use the company car to drive to and from work. On January 12, 2010, office manager [name withheld] informed him that he could no longer take the company car home with him. The claimant had no other means of transportation to and from work that was reliable and that he could use in cold winter weather.

The board of review has held that any unilateral reduction of an individual's rate of pay, including fringe benefits such as vacation leave, sick leave, or medical insurance, gives the individual good cause attributable to the employer for leaving his job, even if the reduction is not a substantial one.
"In this most material aspect of the contract of employment, we do not believe that there can be a de minimis breach. Just as an employee has no right to insist upon an increase in salary -- no matter how insignificant -- the employer has no right to impose a decrease." Dorin v. Condenser and Heat Exchanger Services, Board Case No. 1059-88-BR (12/9/88).

An individual may be found to have had good cause for leaving a job where the employer institutes a change in the conditions of employment which the employer's past practices have clearly established, even though the conditions in question were not part of any written or defined policy. Valentine v. ****** Janitor Service Co., Board Case No. 287-BR-92 (3/27/92).

The employer allowed the claimant to use the company car to drive to and from work for almost four years. Therefore, this referee finds that his use of the car to transport himself to and from work was a condition of his employment that the employer unilaterally changed on January 12, 2010. His use of the company car to commute to and from work was a fringe benefit of his employment that the employer unilaterally took away from him. The employer did not offer him any other means of transportation to and from work and he had no other means of transportation to work that he could use in the winter. Therefore, this referee finds that when the employer stopped letting him use the company car to commute to and from work, it took away one of the fringe benefits of his employment and that the loss of that fringe benefit had a significant adverse effect upon him. Grenier v. Hall Truck Appraisal Service, Inc., Board Case No. 1505-BR-94 (3/31/95), Rybeck v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., Board Case No. 994-BR-98 (8/21/98), Marinelli v. Town of Mansfield, Board Case No. 2067-83-BR (12/5/83). Accordingly, this referee further finds that the loss of that fringe benefit gave him good cause for quitting his job. Therefore, he is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

DISPOSITION AND ORDER

The administrator's determination is reversed, and the claimant's appeal is sustained. Benefits are awarded, effective January 10, 2010, provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.

Why the heck are you bringing back up a dead thread. You didn't think you were going to get graded on this did you.

You get an F for your first post.

 

[Ultranothing]

The post by Violet9533 was the decision of the CT Department of Labor regarding my case. The case I described here. The one that all of you gave me the "free advice" on. All of which was wrong.

So I'd say that, for a first post? That's an A+. Your grades, however, are another question.

 

[cbg]

And you waited six years to tell us?

Well, then, thanks for the update.

 

[commentator]

So they took it that after providing you transportation for several years, the employer took it away. This changed the conditions of the work. So you won the unemployment claim. Hooray for your side. Then I wonder if there was any problem with the fact that you had announced that you had "no transportation." I bet you didn't tell them that, that you couldn't take another job because you had no transportation. Back six years ago when you drew benefits. Long since past. But if you will check prior posts, I never said absolutely not. I never do.

 

[Ultranothing]

And you waited six years to tell us?

Well, then, thanks for the update.

This case is on my mind from time to time. Every few years or so, I think about it. I think about the case and I think about the responses here. Like now! Another six years later.

I'm happy to report that, as a result of my dealings with this and a few other transportation employers throughout the years, that I got married, had five kids and then started my own transportation company. We have a large fleet of vehicles and I never have to worry about how to get to work again!

 

[quincy]

This case is on my mind from time to time. Every few years or so, I think about it. I think about the case and I think about the responses here. Like now! Another six years later.

I'm happy to report that, as a result of my dealings with this and a few other transportation employers throughout the years, that I got married, had five kids and then started my own transportation company. We have a large fleet of vehicles and I never have to worry about how to get to work again!

If FreeAdvice gave an award for longest time between original post and update, I think you’d win it.

The past twelve years have been productive ones for you. Congratulations on your marriage, the growing of your family, and on forming your own successful transportation company.

We will wait with bated breathe for your next update (in 2028?).

 

[Bali Hai Again]

 

[Ultranothing]

If FreeAdvice gave an award for longest time between original post and update, I think you’d win it.

The past twelve years have been productive ones for you. Congratulations on your marriage, the growing of your family, and on forming your own successful transportation company.

We will wait with bated breathe for your next update (in 2028?).

Oh god, I hope it's a good one.

2028. I will talk to you then!