Full time to Temp....
Worked full time for 25 years, walked in one day and was told my job was being eliminated. Company offered me part-time work in a lower-level job, with no insurance or other benefits, at times that would make searching for a full-time job difficult. Because I refusd the part-time job, all severence package deals ( normally, when employees were let go, they were offered severence based on how long they had worked here)were deemed null and void.
Qestions - 1) will refusing the part-time work ( with no benefits) negate my ability to claim unemployment for the full time position? and 2) should they have paid the severence?
I don't know of any employment law that demands an employer offer a severance package, however it would be helpful to know which state this happened in .. in case there's a precedent manual that might shed more light on any good causes you may of had to refuse the proffered employment due to substantial changes to the original terms and conditions of employment at time of hire.
The suitability of the offered job, when compared to your previous job, pay, and the experience and training you possess is at issue to determine payment of unemployment benefits .. at least in my mind.
Your situation is slightly unique in that a technique was employed for the position elimination, which would of been a legitimate lack of work claim. However the offered work is being used to avoid it. When an employer injects an offer of continuing in the employment whether the work is suitable or unsuitable to the individual .. it allows them to protest the claim.
Claimant voluntarily quit for personal reasons although continuing work was available.
I had much the same experience and I took the temp job .. without health benefits, but only because they brought me back through a temp agency at the same rate of pay as I had when laid off.
The name of the state would be helpful to focus in on good cause decisions. Just to know if your issue will be refusal of suitable employment or a voluntary quit and so maybe, I could link to some relevant precedents to help you see the argument .. otherwise I'll just have to show you what other states say in their precedents.
However, I am willing to go out on that limb I hate and say, from this distance .. it sounds like you have a good shot at benefits if the changes were substantial enough for a "reasonable person" to make the same decision to refuse the offer.