Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep putting in more stuff to this story that MATTERS.
My stuff is out of order. In that you don't want this to be adjudicated as a quit if at all possible. That's the last ditch effort. So that part I have about the "changed job duties," that is what you make last. These people get tired of reading stuff just like anyone else, so put the important, easier to decide things first.
However, thisk "going to HR" that you talk about you need to describe it as, "I wanted to go to HR to adjust my grievance. I had no intention of quitting. I have the right to try to get my employer to fix things, and that should never be construed as someone quitting."
Thank you so much for all your replies! I just wanted to let you know on my last day there which this conversation was recorded and submitted we discussed the issues going on, mainly my new job description that was more teller duties than my original hired as loan processor-back up teller. That meant I only did the teller duties when someone was out sick or on vacation. The whole year I was first there it was ok and only did it a few time. At the end of last year the loan dept started to slow down so manager decided she was so called going to do cross-training and put me as teller over 50% of the time and the full time teller was now only doing it one day. I told the VP in the meeting I didn't think it was fair and I wanted to talk to someone in HR - besides that this full time teller was a tattle tale on every little minor thing. I discussed with him about this and how I couldn't work like that anymore. It had escalated the day before with this teller that's what finally brought it to this final meeting. Since he wasn't an HR person he couldn't help on that matter. His final words like I said was write the letter or walk either way the outcome will be the same because our relationship is severed. At the hearing they brought up the teller duties, like I told you earlier, they said everyone is back up in case you are needed. My big thing is this was not back up, most of my days were up front n the hearing officer took it as teller was always part of my job duties.
so do you think it would be best to first put about at the hearing the recording that hearing officer didn't even consider what the VP admitted to? Giving me the 2 options regardless. Final I can put that the job description changed , hearing officer put in there that he is not pursuaded that there were any issues going on that were unusual at the time the claimant believed there was?? WTF! Why don't they stick to why I was appealing that I was forced to quit and they said regardless of what I say I will no longer be there. sorry for rambling on. I am sure I have to make this letter quick and only the important issues at hand. I just keep going back to the recording that wasn't even brought up in the decision ??
1. Did you really tell your employer that you were not going to work a position that is part of your job duties?
2. Did you do this more than once?
3. Did you mention in anyway (to unemployment) that the reason you accepted a resignation in lieu of termination was to get the extra money and benefits?
I did tell unemployment the 3rd question. That was the only reason I did the letter otherwise I would have got nothing. I have 3 days left to file the appeal from the hearing and found you can also do it online so planning on getting the letter together today. Any advice would be appreciated. I just want to make sure I get the specific points across so they can see they didn't take the evidence into consideration. thanks for your replies!
Just so you understand, you have TWO issues to fight.
1. You have to now convince unemployment that the Resignation was still under duress which under Colorado's rules, means it was not a quit. However the problem I see is they have this weird view that if you made a decission to accept it based on some wage/benefit incentive, you really can;t claim duress because you made a thoughtful decission.
2. Even if unemployment rules it was a resignation under duress and thus its not a quit but an employer termination, you still have to show the termination wasn't for misconduct. Thats why answering the first 2 questions is more important than answering the 3rd queston. You're focusing only on 3 and ignoring the MAIN issue.
So, did you actually refuse on more than one occassion to work a teller position when told to do so?
As far as the first 2 questions, I didn't refuse to work the teller position. I only refused it on the last day because I had issues to resolve and didn't want to be up front dealing with customers. They knew I wasn't happy with this position but I was told it would be permanent until maybe in the future things would change. They were basically saying it was a cross training because we were so slow. So that's why I didn't answer the first 2 questions.
As far as the first 2 questions, I didn't refuse to work the teller position. I only refused it on the last day because I had issues to resolve and didn't want to be up front dealing with customers. They knew I wasn't happy with this position but I was told it would be permanent until maybe in the future things would change. They were basically saying it was a cross training because we were so slow. So that's why I didn't answer the first 2 questions.
I hate to break this to you but regardless of anything else, you will have to address the refusal to work a position your employer is claiming is part of your job description and that you have worked before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.