On LOA and I was never notified of discharge, termination or separation…After 60 days with no word from Employer I requested UI Benefits in Massachusetts.

by John

(Massachusetts, USA)

On 3/17/2014 I had a personal matter come up that required me to leave work for a period of time. I was an Account Manager for a Major Security Firm. The personal matter was between my Wife & I. I left the marital home, asked my Manager for a Leave of Absence Form, filled it out, she approved it and I called it good to focus on the issue at hand.

In the interim, on or about 3/20/2014 I had warrant issued against me for “Threats to Commit a Crime”; a misdemeanor in Massachusetts, against the alleged boyfriend of my Wife. I never threatened him and that case was adjudicated and dismissed.

My employer stopped answering my phone calls, texts, emails and any form of correspondence except once when I texted and asked “Do I still have a job or what?” on March 27, 2014. The reply was “I cannot answer that at this time…”. After that I didn’t hear anything until May in which the Regional Manager texted me “Hey, How the Heck Are You Doing? Miss You, Hope All is Well.” I replied to him, “Do I still have a job or what?” He replied, I have no idea, I’ll call corporate (in Georgia) and get back to you”.

I never heard from him. On May 20, 2014 I filed a UI Claim for Benefits. Within 4 days my claim was allowed, the employer responded to notice of claim filed and the same claim was then “Disqualified for Non-Monetary Reasons”.

I appealed this disqualification & won (all online on Mass.gov.)…then they Employer appealed my winning and I was again disqualified. I again appealed to an the Board of Hearings. We had one hearing for well over an hour, and another yesterday for again well over an hour. I had subpoenaed 7 witnesses and none were allowed to testify. The employer’s contention is that by having a warrant issued it was a “knowing violation of a company policy & procedure that the employee intentionally and with malice, without regard for said policy’s & procedures, and therefore should be denied UI benefits” (Thats they’re exact wording on the appeal form). During the 1st hearing, the ALJ advised the Employer’s representative multiple times that there’s no evidence I was ever separated or notified of any separation from the company. She further advised that the misdemeanor case had no relevance whereas I was on a leave of absence. He deny’s any LOA was in place, and stated on the record that the payroll system “automatically” terminates any employee who has no payroll activity for 60 days. Anyhow, long story short, the initial determination on the online UI system states: “Affirmed In Part, Deny In Part” …and it wont be published for another week or so. Does anyone know what the heck this means? I’m the appealing party. I was niver fired, never quit, was never notified I was discharged for any reason never mind a “knowing violation”. What does the “Affirmed In Part, Deny In Part” mean? Winning this appeal is literally the salvation of my family. If I lost, we will be homeless, no food, no nothing in less than 2 weeks. Thank you for any help you can give.

Comments for On LOA and I was never notified of discharge, termination or separation…After 60 days with no word from Employer I requested UI Benefits in Massachusetts.

Average Rating

Sep 17, 2014
Rating

What the heck does affirmed and denied in part mean

by: Chris

Hi, first the last interaction with the employer and the state of Mass, sounds like a lower level (first) hearing that was simply continued after the first time y’all met because it there was a lot of talking going on that was screwing up the hearing examiner’s other scheduled hearings for the day.

This happens quite a bit.

But to your question. Generally, if I read a determination (I don’t think you’re waiting for another initial determination, but a hearing decision) or the findings of a hearing decision which mentioned, allowed in part and denied in part, it was because it is referencing two different sections of law.

One being basic eligibility base on the burden (in your case it sounds like the employer burden of misconduct wasn’t fulfilled) and the denial might of been caused by a conditional eligibility issue.

Conditional eligibility issues will still prevent the payment of approved benefits and frequently when a LOA is involved, it sometimes comes out while testifying, the claimant is not able and available to look for, or accept suitable work if offered.

However, that would usually occur when the person had exhausted a leave of absence for health reasons but still unable to prove they had been released by Dr. to return to work. But, that is not relevant to the employer who must prove misconduct as the reason the employer wouldn’t extend a LOA when requested by the employee and instead chose to terminate for something other than misconduct.

But you sound like you’re now ready to go back to work, so I ask you, did you say anything that would give the hearing examiner the impression you weren’t ready, willing, able, available for work, or that you are not currently looking for suitable work, or refused suitable work?

Chris