You quit ... because of new conditions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Laigscrindal

New Member
I was let go from my job. My employer, company A, sold the business to company B that makes a competing product. "A" required "B" to make an "equal" offer to all "in-scope" employees (~50). "A" also required that "B" could not interview "in-scope" employees for fear that some employees might not match a "normal" position at "B" (some positions at "A" do not exist at "B") or might appear to be "sub-par" workers. I received no work description from "B" after 2 discussions with the hiring manager. Instead I received a dialog that said "A's" product will be mothballed (no new development) and implied "B's" product was already fully staffed in my expertise; "I don't know what you will do, be happy you have a job, we're a great company". Other workers felt welcomed with discussions like "what do you do" and "here's what we are working on" (different manager). The incentive for "B" to accept all employees was that "A" agreed to sell "B's" products thus expanding "B's" market opportunity by 10x. I didn't see an opportunity in my skill at "B", so I did not accept the offer. A hiring manager in a different department at "A" wanted to hire me (transfer), but "A" blocked me, concerned that "B" would sue them for stealing talent. I assumed I could re-join after the deal closed, but "A" is now downsizing. "A" identified me as "Voluntary quit". Calif EDD denied my UI claim saying "you quit ... new conditions ... did not explore all reasonable ...". It seemed to me that I cannot be forced to accept new conditions that have no job description (only a similar title with same pay and location). I explained this during my claim interview, but the denial suggests I don't have a good argument. My job title is generic, e.g. sales person. The EDD suitable employment section explains that a "clothing" sales person cannot be forced to work as a "tool" sales person. My occupation is highly skilled. In a group of 9 workers at company "A" with the same title, I was the only one with my skills. I have 35 years experience. "Expert" is the description for my title at "A". I received an "exemplary worker" award from the CEO 3 months before the business was sold ("A" has >50,000 employees). I provided technical analysis to "A" as they considered how to exit the business (insider). Are there any valid arguments to disqualify company "A's" position?
 
Based on your EDD denial and your version of what transpired, I see nothing unusual in all of these events.

You can appeal your EDD denial, sometimes appellate hearing officers are a bit more judicious.

Otherwise, employers don't need to do any of the things that you think were done incorrectly. Absent a BA with a union, or an individual employment contract, employers are free to hire and fire without rhyme or reason.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD
 
I understand they can fire for any reason at any time, but don't the conditions make the termination "involuntary" enabling me to receive UI compensation?
 
I understand they can fire for any reason at any time, but don't the conditions make the termination "involuntary" enabling me to receive UI compensation?

You said you did not accept the offer.

I think that is considered a voluntary quit.

At least that may be what the state concluded.

Read the decision, as the rationale should be documented.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD
 
The decision was "you quit ... because of new conditions of employment imposed by the employer. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit."

I don't understand what the new conditions were, but presume they were to "accept an offer with a new owner". I did not respond to the offer from "B" which had an expiration date.

I talked with the "B" hiring manager (one on one) twice, attended 3-4 group meetings (~50 people) and spent 6 weeks doing requested work for the transfer project (until my last day; easy to confirm). All of the discussions and presentations either (indirectly) confirmed or didn't talk about my concern that they did not need my skills. I asked questions. They did not answer "what is my work assignment". The only active discussions offered were for questions about company "B's" business, products, culture, ... nothing pertaining to my work assignment. How can that be interpreted as "I did not explore"?

Even if company "A" transferred me to a new department in "A", wouldn't they have to describe the new work assignment? Or at least say something like "similar to what you did before?" I thought I was not required to accept an offer that does not provide me sufficient information to determine if it is "suitable" (I was only given a different, but related, vague title; salesman level 5 ==> sales specialist level 2; the title never bothered me).
 
The decision was "you quit ... because of new conditions of employment imposed by the employer. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit."

I don't understand what the new conditions were, but presume they were to "accept an offer with a new owner". I did not respond to the offer from "B" which had an expiration date.

I talked with the "B" hiring manager (one on one) twice, attended 3-4 group meetings (~50 people) and spent 6 weeks doing requested work for the transfer project (until my last day; easy to confirm). All of the discussions and presentations either (indirectly) confirmed or didn't talk about my concern that they did not need my skills. I asked questions. They did not answer "what is my work assignment". The only active discussions offered were for questions about company "B's" business, products, culture, ... nothing pertaining to my work assignment. How can that be interpreted as "I did not explore"?

Even if company "A" transferred me to a new department in "A", wouldn't they have to describe the new work assignment? Or at least say something like "similar to what you did before?" I thought I was not required to accept an offer that does not provide me sufficient information to determine if it is "suitable" (I was only given a different, but related, vague title; salesman level 5 ==> sales specialist level 2; the title never bothered me).

No, an employer is not required to describe in detail every task an employee is to perform.

That doesn't mean an employee is required to violate the law, simply that most anything an employer would ask, an employee should do.

There's no need for you to make your case here, as we are not a court of law.

You are entitled to an appeal, I suggest you prepare for one.

If you have anything credible to build your case upon, it MIGHT be that no one ever formally directed you where to go (and what to do when you arrived).

The merger seemed to be (if you are to be believed) fraught with confusion.

However, I am sure the employer will tell a different tale.
 
Sounds like a voluntary quit to me.You quit because you did not get what you wanted, not because you were offered something unreasonable. It seems you did not yet know what the new job would be and have no way to prove whether it was appropriate for you.
 
This is all new to me, but I don't think the question is what I want, but rather what is suitable. In my occupation and especially at my level no one would consider me for a job that I do not have the appropriate college education and 20+ years of experience. I would not be able to perform well in a related but different work assignment (e.g. foot Dr vs eye Dr). The text that follows is from EDD.CA.gov. I am thankful for any insight that I can gain from this forum.


. . . [W]e have held in a number of previous cases that before a disqualification may be imposed

for refusing suitable employment without good cause it must be shown . . . that the claimant was given sufficient information relative to the duties, hours of work, and working conditions so that the claimant is able to determine whether the work, in his opinion, is suitable and if any reason exists which would constitute a cause for its refusal. . . . (The claimant) testified that she was not informed of any of the details concerning a specific opening ... Under these facts, we are unable to find that the claimant was offered suitable employment and refused the offer without good cause.

The work offered is suitable.

In P-B-310, cited above, the employer had a position available in notions and yardage; he did not have an opening for a salesperson in ready-to-wear garments. The claimant's sales experience for the past 11 years had been in ready-to-wear garments, she was registered with the Department as ladies ready-to-wear salesperson. While the employer had an opening, the available position was determined not suitable for the claimant.
 
Thanks to everyone for your input. I have found an FAQ from my company that may have been designed to create my situation.

Q: May I decline the offer from "B"?
Ans: Yes. However, if you do not accept the "B" offer, your employment with "A" will end, as your position will no longer exist at "A" as of the Service Commencement Date.

Q: If I don't accept the "B" offer, will it be considered a voluntary resignation?
Ans: Yes. Should you choose not to accept a "B" offer of continued employment, your employment separation will be coded as voluntary.

Can a company say "find another job or I will terminate you and code you as voluntary?" Doesn't that override the purpose of UI?

There was a 6 week period after the offer expired during which I worked on the transfer project (then I was terminated on the day that the deal closed). They did not explain that to be "paid time to look for a job". I was still working 8 hour days in my skilled area. A hiring manager in another department at "A" indicated he wanted to hire me. "A" did not allow internal transfers until the deal closed. I would not have requested UI had the transfer gone through. The company is now downsizing so the other position at "A" is no longer available. Can a company chose to replace UI with their own (unexplained) "early termination warning" and continue using my same skills for their benefit during the "early warning" period?
 
Thanks to everyone for your input. I have found an FAQ from my company that may have been designed to create my situation.

Q: May I decline the offer from "B"?
Ans: Yes. However, if you do not accept the "B" offer, your employment with "A" will end, as your position will no longer exist at "A" as of the Service Commencement Date.

Q: If I don't accept the "B" offer, will it be considered a voluntary resignation?
Ans: Yes. Should you choose not to accept a "B" offer of continued employment, your employment separation will be coded as voluntary.

Can a company say "find another job or I will terminate you and code you as voluntary?" Doesn't that override the purpose of UI?

There was a 6 week period after the offer expired during which I worked on the transfer project (then I was terminated on the day that the deal closed). They did not explain that to be "paid time to look for a job". I was still working 8 hour days in my skilled area. A hiring manager in another department at "A" indicated he wanted to hire me. "A" did not allow internal transfers until the deal closed. I would not have requested UI had the transfer gone through. The company is now downsizing so the other position at "A" is no longer available. Can a company chose to replace UI with their own (unexplained) "early termination warning" and continue using my same skills for their benefit during the "early warning" period?


You are complicating this and over thinking it.

It is very simple.

You can appeal, and try to convince the hearing official that you did not resign.

How do you do that?

I don't have any idea, nor do I need to know or be convinced.

You must convince the appellate hearing official.

As "cbg" said, that is the ONLY vote that matters.

From what i have read, you resented not being given special consideration, and thought the company should treat you differently.

You had no contract.

All you had was an "at will" employment situation.

The employer wields ALL the power is such situations.

The employer owed you no LEGAL duty to explain or to accommodate your desires.

An "at will" employee sits in a precarious, defenseless, dependent position.

It sucks, but it is what it is.
 
Thanks again. Now I have some insight into how it comes across. I would not describe myself as "resentful". When I talk about my skills, I am simply trying to say "I wasn't a dead beat" that they wanted to get rid of and it isn't a "generic job" that I can easily flip from one job to another. But I guess that isn't relevant. My refusal was 2 part - 1) why take a job that you can't do and then get laid-off for incompetence and 2) why not jump to a job where you know your skills are wanted. I'm near retirement in a young person industry so it's very hard to get anyone to consider my resume. No need to reply. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top