Family Argument

by Kaitlynn
(Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA)

Bob took a temporary training manager position at a major retailer. He had worked in sales there for about a year and this position offered better pay and the promise of a regular manager position after a year. In order to get this position, Bob had to agree to move, most likely out of state, when placed or he would lose his job. Bob emphatically agreed, repeated many times his willingness to move anywhere, and signed a contract to that effect. Fast forward one year, Bob is told of the new position and what state he'll be moving to. He is promised a $1500 a year pay raise, and the state has a lower cost of living than his home state, but Bob would be making less an hour, so he decides to decline, as per the legally binding contract he signed and enthusiastically agreed to, Bob is fired as his position was temporary and his old position has been filled in the year that he was working as a manager trainee. Bob now feels that the retailer owes him unemployment even though they are following a legally binding contract that he signed.

My question is this, emotions/feelings/ethics aside - just looking at the legal aspect, does Bob deserve unemployment?

P.S - Please forgive all of the many misspellings as I typed this on a touchscreen tablet.




Hi,

Well I have a question about the contract that defined the expectations and terms of employment.

Does it spell out that the remuneration for a job out of state will be based on the cost of living?

And .. what was the actual reduction .. percentage wise that is ..