U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2015, 12:51 PM
 
109 posts, read 391,057 times
Reputation: 67

Advertisements

I was doing some research on-line and discovered an interesting turn of events concerning eligibility for UI benefits for sub teachers during summer school.

The bad news is the decision only stood for about a year because it was over-turned by a San Francisco Superior Court judge. Here is the back story of how the CUIAB tried to establish UI benefits for subs during summer school. Short but sweet victory.

In 2013 a sub teacher that worked for the Ontario-Montclair School District in Ontario, CA (Where I sub by the way.) was granted UI benefits during the district's summer school program during the weeks May 28, 2013-June 22, 2013.. Of course the school district appealed the ALJ's decision to grant Ms. Brady UI benefits.

On appeal the CUIAB (2 to 1) decided on December 10, 2013 (Case No.: AO-337099) the claimant was entitled to benefits for summer school because:

(1) The school district did not submit a list of summer school subs and they had plenty of opportunity to do it at the original ALJ hearing. I guess they tried to submit one with their appeal but the board said-nope can't do it now. Too bad-so sad.

(2) The district's Reasonable Letter of Employment contained the sentence: If your services are needed for the 2013 summer school session, you will be called or notified by mail. The appeals board stated on page 7 (Reasons for Decision) that statement was "credible evidence he or she is on a list or is eligible to be called.....the employer must prove that the claimant is not eligible for work."

As for how it got over-turned.

It turns out there was one dissenting judge on the CUIAB who took this precedent setting benefiut decision to heart and some how got it over-turned. I've researched San Francisco Superior Court online records but couldn't find it. In any event, I just sent a letter to the CUIAB asking them for either a copy of the dissenting CUIAB judges's opinion and/or the Superior Court case number.

I find it odd though that the dissenting CUIAB judge got a San Francisco Superior court judge and not a a Sacramento County or San Bernardino County Superior Court judge to reverse the CUIAB's decision (P-B-505). I got this info from the CUIAB minutes from December 2014 which I found on-line.

P-B-505 can be found here: California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board - Precedent Decisions - Numerical Just scroll down to find the link.

Minutes from CUIAB noting that P-B-505 has been overturned: http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/Board/agenda...tes_121214.pdf.

Anybody know why it was overturned.

I tried establishing the same precedent back in 2010 when I made my own appeal after being rejected by the ALJ for UI benefits during summer school due to 1253.3. My position: They had summer school and they didn't work me. I was ready and willing to work but they never called me. I'm an on-call sub that the federal legislation (FUTA) does not address but should and here's why. Neither ALJ or the CUIAB cared a hoot about what I had to say.

Ironically my argument back then centered around the same reasons set forth in the CUIAB's decision granting UI benefits to Ms. Alicia Brady for the district's summer school session only. My problem was the district that I was working for back in 2010 did not have the deciding sentence (If your services are needed......) in it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2015, 01:34 PM
 
14,508 posts, read 25,301,400 times
Reputation: 2562
Amazing how a few words can make all the difference in the world.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 01:36 PM
 
109 posts, read 391,057 times
Reputation: 67
Default Update

P-B-505, according to a letter that I recently received from the CUIAB, is still valid pending the outcome of an appeal filed by San Francisco Teacher's Union. Yeah! (County of San Francisco Case No: CPF-12-512437)

So with that in mind, I filed for UI benefits earlier this month when work slowed down. I have an eligibility interview tomorrow and I'm sure I'll get the same old denial for UI benefits during any portion of the summer due to reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Not going to argue with the adjudication rep as it would be a giant waste of time. Once I get the denial here is a summary of my appeal based on P-B-505.

The CUIAB held in December 2013 that the denial provision of UI Code 1253.3 (b)(c) does not apply during a district's summer school term if claimant is found to be (1) qualified and (2) eligible to work on-call during a district's summer school session. (See P-B-505 Pages 4-10).

The CUIAB listed several ways that the claimant might show eligibility including the submission of a Letter of Reasonable Assurance of employment notifying claimant that their services might be needed for summer school (See P-B-505; Page 11). Once claimant produces credible evidence he or she is on a list or eligible to be called for summer school employment, the employer must prove that the claimant is not eligible. (See: P-B-505; Page11)

And, lastly, the decision states: "The employer's letter to the claimant states the claimant might be called or notified by mail, if her services are needed during the summer school session. This established that the claimant was unemployed due to lack of work and not that she was unemployed during a summer recess period. The fact that the claimant was not called to work during the summer session does not result in a denial of benefits." (See P-B- 505; Page 11)

Therefor, I am entitled to UI benefits during the district's summer school session because the district's 2015 Letter of Reasonable Assurance indicated that I was eligible to work on-call for their 2015 summer school session and, if my services were needed, they would contact me.

Also, of note indicating public opinion is shifting in favor of extending UI benefits to educational workers is evidenced by California Assembly Bill 399 entitled "Education Worker Summer Relief Act." As of April 14th the bill was amended and is now in committee. The act would amend UI Code Section 1253.3 and repeal Sections 1451, 4152, & 1453 of UI Code. This act would extended UI benefits to classified school employees allowing them to collect Ui benefits between school terms beginning next July as follows:

(1) 2 weeks of UI benefits beginning July 1, 2016
(2) 4 weeks of UI benefits beginning July 1, 2017
(3) 6 weeks of UI benefits beginning July 1, 2018
(4) 8 weeks of UI benefits beginning July 1, 2019

Interesting to see how the school districts will respond.

In any event it has been a long hard road getting UI benefits extended here in California to school employees that work without a contract starting with Cervisi (part-time faculty). Every judge that has ever ruled in our favor always states the same thing: Subs should be able to collect UI benefits during a summer term-period. They don't have to prove they're on a list during the fall and spring terms and they shouldn't have to do it for a summer session either.

Stay Tuned!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top