Search This Site.

My former employer lied at the hearing, and unfortunately I lost another appeal.

by Anthony
(Michigan)

My former employer lied at the hearing, and unfortunately I lost another appeal.


First off, let me explain my protest and my employer's protest.

I quit because my former, immediate supervisor, told me since I had an issue with co-workers for leaving early from work one day, that I should confront them about it ... not my supervisor.

My former supervisor and employer protested my claim for benefits stating I quit because of my hours being reduced. (I quit on August 13th).

My employer had a representative and I had a representative of my own as well.

I stated at the hearing that my supervisor told me to handle my own problems. I would like to explain a little more about this incident. During the week of Aug 15 thru Aug 21 2010 I requested to have four days off. 2 of the four days I requested off were days when I attended classes at night. During the week of July 4th thru July 10th. I requested July 10th off, my supervisor schedule me on one of my night class days, where I worked during the day. I figured since my supervisor arranged the schedule this way for me before, they would've done the same for me during the week of Aug 15th thru the 21st, but they didn't, but I don't believe this was a good reason quit.

I had problems with my co-workers for the fact they left early one day, thus leaving more duties for me to do.
According to what the judge believes in his conclusion
that I was being rude and my supervisor testified saying since I had a "bad attitude I should take it home for the day. I did one better and I quit. I quit because my supervisor felt it was not their concern, so they told me to handle it myself. My supervisor lied under oath and once again a decision went in their favor.

However, a friend of mine that still works at the store I quit from filled me on something they were and I was curious about.
Just as the hearing got underway, everyone introduce themselves. Now what caught my representative's and my
attention was the fact my old supervisor claimed they were they were no longer the supervisor of the deli/bakery department of the store. Now, when my friend asked me if my old supervisor really stated this, I said "yes". My friend, who I talked to recently, was promoted as manager of the deli; my friend explained that my old supervisor was no longer manager of both the deli/bakery, but they were manager of just the bakery.
My friend stated my old supervisor is still and has been
just the "manager of the bakery" since late November 2010. My friend was promoted as deli manager in late November 2010, and still is. My friend said my old supervisor lied and more than likely lied about the final incident (telling me to handle my own problems).
And to prove this, my friend then recalls my supervisor telling the two co-workers one day that I quit because I hated the way those two worked. My friend also remembers those two-workers talking to him about why I hated them.
My old supervisor told the big boss I quit because of my hours, which was part of their written protest. My friend also explained that part of my supervisor's beef with me was the fact they favored certain employees, and those certain employees were part of my supervisor's clique, and if I offended, or came across the wrong way, I was force to do more work than others and work more night shifts than day shifts.

The judge also misunderstood me when I testified saying that co-worker(D) threatened to slap me around late April. According to what the judge understood, the judge concluded that co-worker(D) really did slap me, and the fact of the matter is I WAS ONLY THREATENEND by co-worker(D) my rep asked my
old supervisor if they knew anything about this situation, and my old supervisor stated "yes, just hear-say, and that it was a non work related issue". My rep then asked "if it was hear-say why did you not bother to investigate it", my old supervisor again stated, "it was a non-work related issue."
However, after talking to my friend this weekend, the deal with co-worker(D) is the fact that they were off limits so to speak. When I talked to the BIG BOSS around late April about my issue and wanting to adjust my schedule so the situation would not escalate. The BIG BOSS explained to me just to stay on co-worker(D)'s good side and to let them know if anything else happens.
That conversation with the BIG BOSS really upset me.
Co-worker(D), was suspended for 2 weeks in late 2009 for stealing money from the store, but when co-worker(D) threatened to slap me( according to the judge, they did)
nothing was done about it, as if my situation to the BIG BOSS was nothing more than a complaint. My friend explained to me that my former employer won't consider everyone's complaints as equals, and they figure if it's not happening to them, why should they care. One thing I should probably point out, co-worker(D) is a female and I am a male. If the roles were reversed, where I threatened to slap, the store would have probably suspended me for threatening a female. Co-worker(D) owes the store lots of money(hardship loan), as well as many other employees in the store do. My friend stated that my former employer considers anybody who owes the store money or who is an immediate family member, or great friend an asset to the company; opposed to somebody who is not.

The final thing I noticed in the judge's conclusion letter was the fact my supervisor testified my employment was not in jeopardy. I resigned on August 13th, 2010, about a week later I explained my reasons for quitting to the assistant manager on August 18th, about my reasons for quitting, he explained that my old supervisor wanted to talk to me about getting my job back, however, on August 19th, my assistant manager said my old supervisor did not see the point in talking to me about getting my job back.

In summary, I have the following questions:

1. Do judges make mistakes? Do judges hear what they want to hear?

2. Why does one threat of violence have to be followed by another threat? If one threat is not enough, what happens it the second threat were to be life threatening? Why would the law permit harassment to continue if it already happened once?
3. My friend suggested to prove, that my old supervisor did lie, to either have the judge or my rep call the store and ask for just the bakery manager(which is my old supervisor). Would this in it self be enough to prove they did lie under oath?
4. Finally what are my chances to go before a board of review? My representative told me to give him a call if we won or lost, and that my former employer's representative does not have a lot board of review expertise. My rep's final thought of the hearing was that it would be close and feels that my supervisor really did lie under oath.

Again thank you and I look forward to your opinion.

Anthony



Anthony,

Call your rep and discuss this Anthony.

My problem is that I only have everything you are telling me to rely on ..

A board of review only examines the record created at the hearing .. so, as usual I only see you cluttering up the facts with what you think is relevant.

It would probably be useful for anyone else reading this to know that you and I have communicated via email .. and you are now bringing up a whole lot of stuff that is news to me.


Click here to post comments

Return to Unemployment Appeal Questions.

} }