Illinois Voluntary Quit 601a based on a supplemental income
I have read your information here and understand the reasoning behind short appeals letter and securing an attorney for the appeal hearing. However, we really couldn't afford an attorney right now so i have dedicated myself to studying case law and speaking to anyone who will give me insight for the last few months and submitted what i feel are very compelling precedents to support my husbands case. I feel we have done everything we could do and after this hearing, if we are to lose(I suspect the deck is stacked against us) we will just move on. My husband can open a new case in light of his earnings from contracting (per IDES) at this point. To me, It is really a matter of principle to fight this. ThIs entire process has been nothing short of a nightmare. It is too exhausting to go into detail yet again, but i have posted the synopsis of my husbands case below for anyone who is going through a similar situation with having concurrent employment and having to quit the second job in light of a looming lay off from the primary employment in a situation where the part time job becomes unsuitable without the primary income. There are an entire spectrum of rational reasons that forced him from this second job. We now know that he should have quit this job 4 weeks prior to losing his full time job and he should have explained his circumstances; though Target would have still contested because they contest all claims regardless of chargeability. I have written my representatives and will continue my plight in having the laws changed in Illinois for people in this situation.
The hearing is this week. If you have any final words of advice, i would be eager to hear them.
Hon. Xxxx FAX:
Appeal Hearing Date:
I was a full time employee of Abc Laboratories for 23+ years in the capacity of a Researcher. During a difficult period in the livelihood of my family, I secured two part-time jobs; one of which I still hold as a Hockey Officiator in area ice rinks and the 2nd as an overnight stock person at Target Corporation in xxxxxxxxx.
I quit Target PRIOR to the lay off of my full-time occupation at Abc for numerous reasons that created a “good cause” situation where the employment with Target became UNSUITABLE in light of the impending substantial (more than a 50%) reduction in pay and benefits. This fact establishes a substantial and unilateral change in employment that would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner as set forth in Section 603 of the law.
When I was looking to supplement my income, a secondary source of income had to meet a set of criteria based on my full time occupation. The location, start time, finish time, etc. were crucial to coexist with my primary job. Without the income source from my full-time job Abc, I
would be obliged to seek other employment in daytime hours where my earning power is the greatest for my specialized field. My expertise is specialized so that finding work suitable for my field most likely will require regular travel or ultimately relocation. Without my customary employment with Abc, the Target job was unworkable. I would not be able to travel for weeks at a time.
My movement from this supplemental employment, requiring no special skill, is the reason my claim for benefits from my full-time employment was denied. The Adjudicators’ decision in my case failed the primary purpose of Unemployment benefits as it set aside the fact that I was a full-time employee, last separated by my full-time employer, in a skilled occupation, due to no fault of my own as defined in Section 239 of the unemployment law. The decision created a benefit favoring my full-time employer while imposing yet another unnecessary hardship on me and my family.
My understanding of the Illinois Unemployment Law suggests that Target Corporation is in no way chargeable for my benefits; the absence of this employment in no way reduces the maximum benefits I am entitled to pursuant to my loss of full-time employment.
I am submitting evidence to reflect that I am aggressively seeking full-time steady employment (as reflected in my “Able and Available” 500c Determination), at the time of my separation with Target, I was in the process of securing a Consulting position with the company that bought out my department at Abc. I am optimistic that this will lead to full-time employment with this company in the future due to the success of my services in their Ixxxxx location. This company’s primary facility is located in Ixxxxx and I have worked with them on location in Ixxxxx on two separate occasions affording me remuneration of $6,500.00 for each week of work. Such work was at least twice my current weekly benefit amount as I made more in two weeks than I did at Target in two years. This opportunity would not be possible maintaining the Target job. The Target job was always tied to my full time job at Abc from the beginning to the end. I have included documentation to support these opportunities and the compensation I received.
I am also asking for consideration of attached Case Law and Adjudication Precedents taken from Illinois Unemployment Law which all but mirror the instant case here with the exception that I left Target PRIOR to my lay off. Section 239 of the Act (III. Rev Stat 1987, Ch. 48 par 349) permits individuals with part-time jobs to collect benefits if they earn less than the weekly unemployment benefit amounts to which they are entitled. Consequently, the circumstances of my leaving this part-time job should not affect the receipt of benefits due to me as a result of being laid off by Abc.
Finally, I am attaching the UI Finding showing my qualifying period quarters and wages paid.
Thank you for your consideration.