If my employer puts me on part-time bases after full time, will that effect my unemployment benefits? (claim, payment)

[Ariadne22]

If I were the attorney for OP and NY cited that case, I would argue that case is not on point because claimant was hired only to fill-in until the regular full-time person returned and worked for the school district in accordance with their needs. She was never promised permanent full-time employment, or so it would appear.

The record establishes that claimant was initially hired to cover for a full-time employee who was on disability. When the employee returned from disability, claimant's hours varied according to the employer's needs based upon vacations and absences of permanent employees.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,33

OP has been working full-time for an entire year and was not a replacement employee. OP's employer substantially altered the original terms of her employment. Granted, NY doesn't make it easy but, in this case, it's pretty clear her job has gone from full-time to part-time. She was not hired as and never worked as a part-time, as-needed employee, and shouldn't be expected to accept part-time hours.

[oierega]

I am no longer working.

Applied for UE today. My boss will fight it for sure. Lets see how it goes.


I found one case, if any interested


STATE OF NEW YORK
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD PO Box 15126 Albany NY 12212-5126 DECISION OF THE BOARD
Mailed and Filed: JULY 19, 2011IN THE MATTER OF: Appeal Board No. 554238PRESENT: GEORGE FRIEDMAN, LEONARD D. POLLETTA MEMBERSThe Department of Labor issued the initial determinations disqualifying the claimant fromreceiving benefits, effective December 31, 2009, on the basis that the claimant voluntarilyseparated from employment without good cause; charging the claimant with anoverpayment of $ 405 in regular benefits and $25 in Federal Additional Compensation(FAC) benefits recoverable pursuant to Labor Law § 597 (4); and reducing the claimant'sright to receive future benefits by eight effective days on the basis that the claimant madewillful misrepresentations to obtain benefits. The claimant requested a hearing.The Administrative Law Judge held hearings at which all parties were accorded a fullopportunity to be heard and at which testimony was taken. There were appearances bythe claimant and on behalf of the employer and the Commissioner of Labor. By decisionfiled September 13, 2010 (), the Administrative Law Judge overruled the initialdeterminations of voluntary separation without good cause and receipt of recoverableoverpayments and modified the initial determination of willful misrepresentation to reducethe claimant's right to receive future benefits by four effective days and, as sustained theinitial determination of willful misrepresentation as modified.The employer appealed the Judge's decision to the Appeal Board insofar as it overruledthe initial determinations of voluntary separation without good cause and receipt ofrecoverable overpayments and modified the initial determination of willfulmisrepresentation to reduce the claimant's right to receive future benefits by four effectivedays. The Board considered the arguments contained in the written statement submittedby the claimant and on behalf of the employer.Based on the record and testimony in this case, the Board makes the followingFINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant worked for the employers, a husband and wife, fromAugust 8, 2005 through December 30, 2009 caring for the couple's child. In April 2009,
the employers reduced the claimant's hours to part-time in response to a reduction intheir need for in-home child care. The claimant advised the employers that she would belooking for a new job because she needed the hours and income associated with full-timework. In the meantime, the claimant would continue working for the employers until shefound a new job. The claimant worked full-time during the summer while the child wasnot in school, and returned to part-time work in September. The employers paid theclaimant $760 per week when she worked full-time. At the time of separation, theclaimant was earning $433 per week. The claimant's earnings reported on her W-2statements show that her earnings in 2009 were approximately 13% less than herearnings in 2008.In November 2009, the claimant advised the employers that December 30 would be herlast day of work. The claimant believed that she had found a new job. The claimant knewthe name and address of the new employer, and she also knew the hours she wouldwork and that her job duties would involve caring for the new employer's child. She didnot have a definite start date or rate of pay.After the claimant quit, her new job fell through. She never worked for the new employer.The claimant filed a claim for benefits and certified that she separated due to lack ofwork. Based on this certification, the claimant received $430 in benefits, less taxes.OPINION: No appeal having been filed by the claimant, it is the law of the case that theclaimant made a willful misrepresentation to receive benefits.The credible evidence establishes that the claimant provided full-time child care for theemployers until the employers no longer needed her services on a full-time basis. Whenthe employers advised the claimant in April 2009 that they intended to reduce her to apart-time schedule and part-time pay, the claimant advised the employers that she wouldhave to seek new full-time employment. Only subject to this understanding did theclaimant continue working for the employers on a part-time basis. Thus, contrary to theemployer's position, the claimant did not accept the reduction in hours and compensationas new terms and conditions of employment. Rather, the claimant rejected the newterms and conditions from the outset. Indeed, at the hearing, the employer did notdispute that the claimant responded to her new schedule and rate of pay by expressing aneed to find new employment. The employer testified that prior to the claimant'sresignation, her search for full-time work was a subject of "ongoing discussion."Further, regardless of whether we measure the reduction in the claimant's compensationbased on her earnings on a weekly or an annual basis, the reduction was great enoughto effect a substantial change in terms and conditions of employment such as to provide
the claimant with good cause to quit. On a weekly basis, the claimant's compensationdropped from $760 to $433, a decrease of more than 40%. The employer argues that weshould instead rely upon the claimant's annual earnings, which from 2008 to 2009decreased by approximately 13%. Even if we rely upon this lower number, however, a13% decrease in compensation constitutes a substantial change in terms and conditionsfor purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Law. (See Appeal Board No. 452446).Finally, we have no basis to consider the employer's contention that the claimant did notactually seek new employment throughout the time when she was collecting benefits, asthis issue has not been presented to the Department of Labor.The record establishes that the claimant promptly and consistently rejected theemployer's unilateral, substantial reduction of the claimant's hours and rate of pay.Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant's voluntary separation from employment wassupported by good cause. It logically follows, and we further conclude, that the claimantdid not receive an overpayment of benefits. If further follows, and we further conclude,that whereas the claimant's willful misrepresentation did not cause her to receive benefitsto which she was not otherwise entitled, the forfeiture penalty associated with theclaimant's willful misrepresentation was properly reduced from eight effective days to foureffective days.DECISION: The decision of the Administrative Law Judge, insofar as appealed from, isaffirmed.The initial determinations, disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits, effectiveDecember 31, 2009, on the basis that the claimant voluntarily separated fromemployment without good cause; and charging the claimant with an overpayment of $405 in regular benefits and $25 in Federal Additional Compensation (FAC) benefitsrecoverable pursuant to Labor Law § 597 (4), are overruled.The initial determination, reducing the claimant's right to receive future benefits by eighteffective days on the basis that the claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtainbenefits, is modified to reduce the claimant's right to receive future benefits by foureffective days, and, as so modified, is sustained.The claimant is allowed benefits with respect to the issues decided herein.GEORGE FRIEDMAN, MEMBERLEONARD D. POLLETTA, MEMBER

[Ariadne22]

the reduction was great enough to effect a substantial change in terms and conditions of employment such as to provide the claimant with good cause to quit.

The employer argues that we should instead rely upon the claimant's annual earnings, which from 2008 to 2009 decreased by approximately 13%. Even if we rely upon this lower number, however, a 13% decrease in compensation constitutes a substantial change in terms and conditions for purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Law. (See Appeal Board No. 452446).

Yea!! Therein lies "good cause." If you are initially denied because NY examiner takes the standard default denial position, you know what to do next. Matter of fact, you might want to cite this case at your first hearing to avoid any protracted appeals and delay in payment of benefits.

Keep us posted on how this unfolds.

[Chyvan]

I love when claimants become empowered enough to find the case law to make their cases and rest their hat on the right issues so that hearing officers can't deny claims for lame, stupid reasons.

[robjr]

Similar question - my employer just verbally told me that my status was being reduced to hourly and I would only be paid for the hours I work each pay period. I was previously full-time salaried. I haven't had anything in writing yet - my employer said they would start by using up my PTO hours (I have about 80 'in the bank').

I think this is a ruse to get me to resign, but the job market is slow so if I can't find anything else I may find my hours slip below the 30h/week which I need to get health insurance. Is there anything I can do to make the best of this situation or am I just going to have to accept it. My contract says that I am employed 'at will'. FYI, I've been here almost four years and my state is California.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by robjr

Similar question - my employer just verbally told me that my status was being reduced to hourly and I would only be paid for the hours I work each pay period. I was previously full-time salaried. I haven't had anything in writing yet - my employer said they would start by using up my PTO hours (I have about 80 'in the bank').

I think this is a ruse to get me to resign, but the job market is slow so if I can't find anything else I may find my hours slip below the 30h/week which I need to get health insurance. Is there anything I can do to make the best of this situation or am I just going to have to accept it. My contract says that I am employed 'at will'. FYI, I've been here almost four years and my state is California.

CA does recognize a partial benefit program, wherein it pays UE to people whose hours have been reduced. You could hang on that way for a while until you lose your health insurance, in which case between loss of pay and loss of benefits you would be justified in a quit. Read through these links, carefully:

Total and Partial Unemployment TPU 80.1 - Alternate or Staggered Work Periods

Total and Partial Unemployment - Table of Contents

http://edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Voluntary_Qu...f_Contents.htm

Apply for partial benefits immediately when you begin to experience lower pay. Your employer may just fire you when you do this. If the cuts become too severe, quit.

[Chyvan]

Regardless of "at will" status there is ALWAYS a contract of employment. It just goes from minute to minute.

You have every right to tell your employer via email (print it out with any responses) right now that after your conversation you will NOT accept a change to your full-time salaried status. You explain that in your entire tenure that you've never worked on an hourly basis, and you're not going to start now.

I've lived what you're going through now. When the employer starts cutting your hours and your benefits, it won't stop. Before you know it you'll end up like I did. I was going to be GROSSING $280/wk with no benefits when I could get $240/wk on UI and stay home with no benefits. With different tax treatment and the expenses of working, I'd have been NETTING less than on UI.

You start being the squeeky wheel now because one of two things will happen. They'll skip over you and target someone else, or they'll fire you. Unfortunately, I wasn't as vocal in the beginning as I should have been, and was put into a situation where I had to quit to avoid the adverse changes, and went through 11 months of appeals and an extra month before getting paid a dime in UI to get it treated as a discharge/refusal of work rather than a quit.

There had already been some reductions, and had I waited even one more week (I was at a quarter-end), I would have gotten only $170/wk vs $240/wk, and I'd only have been eligible for 79 weeks of UI rather than the 89 weeks I'm planning on collecting.

I keep hoping the job market gets better, but that old employer is now defunct anyway so I suspect you trying to hang on to this job may be like clinging to a sinking ship.

[monica hilts]

I have almost the same issue after working full time at my job my job cut my hours from 36-39 with no warning or anything. Now i thought it was a probationary thing due to me asking for a raise however 10 months later i am from full time to 16 hours per week barely survivng and is this legal can i get benefits seeing she won't fire me to collect un employement

[Chyvan]

It is legal for your employer to put the screws to you. However, the first step is knowing what makes "good cause" to quit, and get your UI.

Timing is important. You make it sound like this reduction was 10-months ago. That's too long. When the bad stuff happens, you have to complain immediately or it starts to look like you agreed to it.

How are the 16 hours/wk distributed? Is it 8 hrs/day for 2 days or 4 hrs/day over 4 days?

[missrocky 14]

I lve in California, I work 4 days a week making $ 12 an hour. I tried to apply for partial benefits and was denied because I " made too much" even for part time work. Would it be different if my employer fills out the Notice of Reduced Earnings ?