My employer wanted to transfer me to another dealership because business is slow even though they knew I didnt want to transfer
I work at a large car dealer group in Illinois, and one Friday morning my boss came into my office and we had a regular discussion going when I was asked to plow the snow we had the previous night.
I told them I had been to the doctor 2 days previous and diagnosed with tendinitis in my left arm and was under orders from my doctor not to aggravate my arm so I wouldn’t be working outside. I also said I could not plow anymore because I found out I wasn’t insured properly and it is actually a managers job.
My boss then said I should go get the doctor’s letter NOW!! After 5 years there I thought it was ok to just mention I would have the doctors note faxed over later.
My boss then said would you like to go to this other specific car dealer in the group, I said no, they are doing less than half the business we are. He then got up and left and his parting words were, YOU ARE POISON TO THE STORE.
I was fired and hour or so later.
I firmly believe it was because they didn’t believe I had a medical problem. The reason now on my claim states, THE CLAIMANT WAS DISCHARGED FROM CAR DEALER BECAUSE HIS EMPLOYERS BUSINESS IS SLOW AND HE DID NOT WANT TO GO TO ANOTHER LOCATION.
They know this would cause me to make much less money considering this other stores volume, and now that I have been fired for this so called misconduct they offered me the job anyway?
I don’t know where I stand with this, but I am considering an attorney. I dont feel there was any misconduct and I was top salesman last year and 2nd the previous year.
You were fired, but the employer is telling the state you quit….shame on them. And making the state understand you were fired and not for misconduct is your goal.
I had to step away from my computer..to ponder how to answer your question because if someone were to ask me to make a list naming the types of employers, employees need to guard their self against the most…car dealerships would be very near the top.
The managers tend to put their mouths in gear…before their brains and then try to create documentation and or stories to fit what they think would have been the correct course of action….Of course it isn’t true for all, but it is for quite a few.
Okay, I understand the employer wanting something from your doctor. Your response that you would have it faxed is reasonable, in fact it would save the employer the effort of trying to prove it really didn’t come from the doctor:)
Your refusal to plow since you found out that what you were doing was illegal is reasonable.
Your manager “offered” you a transfer to another dealership with half the sales and you said no. Again, reasonable, I think….(I’m guessing there was more said than what’s here) and it could matter in the end.
He then tells you that “YOU ARE POISON TO THE STORE”….and golly, all this in just one conversation!!
He then comes back an hour later…probably after talking to who he thinks knows more than himself….and fires you for refusing a transfer that he just asked if you would be interested in…right.
Then the employer tells the state…you quit.
Looks to me like they made a mistake at just about every opportunity…..but….there’s always a but.
I would be very careful of the employer’s offer of the job after they fired you. It’s probably the very reason for their statement to the state and it has to do with job refusal. It is probably not an issue you couldn’t overcome if raised, but it could become an issue to be dealt with.
The statutes say this..about refusal of work in Illinois:
(820 ILCS 405/603) (from Ch. 48, par. 433) Sec. 603. Refusal of work. An individual shall be ineligible for benefits if he has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the Director, or to accept suitable work when offered him by the employment office or an employing unit, or to return to his customary self‑employment (if any) when so directed by the employment office or the Director. Such ineligibility shall continue for the week in which such failure occurred and, thereafter, until he has become reemployed and has had earnings equal to or in excess of his current weekly benefit amount in each of four calendar weeks which are either for services in employment, or have been or will be reported pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act by each employing unit for which such services are performed and which submits a statement certifying to that fact. In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, consideration shall be given to the degree of risk involved to his health, safety, and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation, and the distance of the available work from his residence. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, no work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this Act to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions: If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute; if the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality; if, as a condition of being employed, the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization; if the position offered is a transfer to other work offered to the individual by the employing unit under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or pursuant to an established employer plan, program, or policy, when the acceptance of such other work by the individual would require the separation from that work of another individual currently performing it. (Source: P.A. 82‑22.)