An employee, or the employer, (which should go without saying may be an employee too, but called a boss) is expected have a legitimate argument based upon the burden of proof to actually win the FIRST unemployment appeal hearing.
Yet, it's still those who have lost their job through no fault of their own that lose an appeal seventy-five percent of the time when unrepresented. And often enough the hearing decision is correct to deny benefits.
However, it is estimated approximately half that do lose an appeal hearing could of won had they been represented. It is an alarming, but from my perspective, it shows the importance of knowing what you should be trying to prove at an unemployment hearing to get, or keep benefits.
Please read the disclaimer: This is general information about unemployment benefits and appeals based upon a job experience working for UI cost control companies. Nothing is intended to be more than general information for you to follow up on to see if it may apply to the quest to collect unemployment benefits.
I doesn't matter whether you were initially approved to receive, or were denied the right to collect unemployment benefits an appeal is possible .. and often unavoidable because an employer is the party that appeals most often.
Appealing the first determination of benefits is in order and a right when a claimant, or an employer disagrees with the finding. But writing that letter also implies, you understand what will be expected of you because you appealed.
There will be one party expected to prove (sustain) the burden of proof regarding the cause for separation from a job and of course the other party who is expect to know how to rebut the argument behind one that proves good cause to be the moving party.
What is the standard of unemployment law required to prove, or rebut a burden of proof for good cause to quit, or discharge?
Let's face it, an employer may, or may not have good cause to terminate an employee that at least , rises to meet the burden of work related misconduct.
But why do employees assume there can never be good cause to quit a job, or choose to ignore those efforts one must make as an employee to prove it was a quit due to the fault of the work, or employer?
Once you read some, it will be clear I can become a little annoyed with those who ignore the burden when they asked me questions about collecting unemployment benefits .. without addressing some facts relevant to proving, or rebutting a burden, but it took a few years and that's why there's so many Q&As to choose from.
Of course you can. I know this because the possibility is included in all state employment security act (another name for unemployment laws).
I'm not telling you quitting a job is an easy thing to do and prove good cause for doing so.
But I am telling you having good cause is the burden of imposed by UI law, to quit and collect unemployment benefits. Employees who quit fail so often to acquire proof of good cause, getting an employee to quit first has become a strong strategy relied upon by business to shift their lackluster case for misconduct to you.
I have found after speaking to many people who have been fired from their job that it's employees who are focused on working in the best interest of an employer .. that are given to pondering how they might of actually been responsible for being fired.
All I got to say is .. knock that off, at least for now, and read a famous unemployment precedent decision which defined what work related misconduct is, so you know what your former employer is up against in general terms to prove their burden of having good cause.
What is the opposite of suitable work? Unsuitable of course.
So I ask you, if collecting unemployment benefits requires that you not refuse, or quit suitable work without good cause isn't it a good idea to know some criteria used by a UI dept. that helps them establish what makes any job suitable to you
Temporary staffing outfits serve a useful purpose in that permanent employment seems to be a thing of the past, or something we have to now tryout for.
But being an employee of a temp agency who sends you out on temp assignments, is not much different than being a permanent employee whose work schedule is contingent on receiving suitable work assignments.
But, a number of state UI laws include special voluntary quit provisions just for temp employees which require you to be informed and on your toes .. always, for those times when the temp agency can't provide you with a suitable temp assignment.
If you are collecting unemployment benefits when you start school, or training, you are raising a flag for the unemployment department on a conditional eligibility issue to collect called being Able and Available .. for work of course. Some state unemployment laws even have special provisions to address this situation. Of course interpreting how a state law is applied to the issue can be confusing .. so thank goodness for the state by state UI law comparison charts.
Most unemployment claims are initially determined two ways. First, you get what they call the monetary determination. It qualifies you for the amount of benefits you can receive, based upon wages paid to you during your claims base period and determines the weekly benefit amount you will receiving if found otherwise eligible to receive benefits based upon the reasons for separation from a job. Some people believe the first monetary determination means they get benefits .. If only it were really that simple.