Unemployment hearing and new job - lol!

[Signorina]

Ok-that was NC's law-let me look into SC. I am slow on my lil iPhone 3G. The language in that ruling CONCEDED that you were acting with their tacit approval and in the view of mgmt-I think that's grounds to win on appeal. Just in my humble opinion.

Of course, I work in IL & every state is different but we had an evil employee shout FU (the words) to a customer and he won his claim "because we did not have a policy prohibiting shouting FU at a customer" and he was known by mgmt to have been belligerent (abrasive yes-but had not sworn at a customer prior) and we did not penalize him for it.

Seriously. We now have a written policy that states you may not yell or swear at customers.

 

[Signorina]

From SC DEW:
First, many employers discharge individuals for misconduct, but few know the legal definition of misconduct for unemployment purposes. Case law and state law defines misconduct as a substantial or intentional disregard of the employer's interests. The deliberate nature of the act is a crucial component of the definition.
In contrast, case law and state law specifically exempts from the discharge of misconduct definition inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion.
Ineptitude is not misconduct, nor an argument between employer and employee, nor a difference in work habits. An unintentional error or a temporary lapse of good judgment also is not misconduct.
In addition, generally a single instance does not constitute misconduct except in extreme cases. (Arson, for example is misconduct based on a single incident.) At least one warning must usually be issued for the specific behavior that eventually leads to a discharge.
Warnings are important. A warning for something else does not qualify. If an employee receives a warning for lateness, but then is discharged for neglecting to follow safety standards, misconduct would probably not be found. The initial warning for lateness is not the same as the actual reason for discharge. Employers who keep records of warnings provided usually prevail in supporting the discharge for misconduct.
Burden of proof in misconduct issues is placed on the employer, who must show two things: deliberate disregard of the employer's interest, and at least one prior warning for misconduct. (were you warned formally?)
To meet this burden of proof, complete and accurate record keeping is essential. Ideally, warning should be in writing, dated and signed by both the employer and employee. In the case of a dispute over the issuance of a warning, the employee's signature on the warning constitutes clear evidence that he was indeed given a warning.
Warnings should clearly list the behaviors that are not acceptable. Citing specific recommendations on how to improve, and specific standards to be achieved, are also important. Incomplete or vague records seldom contain these essential items and will not generally meet the burden of proof requirement.
Finally, this proof must be provided to the Adjudication Unit or presented at an Administrative Law Judge appeal hearing. Failure to substantiate an allegation of misconduct with evidence or credible testimony will result in a determination in favor of the claimant. An employer must participate in the initial fact-finding process, as well as any appeals, or evidence will be lacking and the unemployment claim will be allowed.

from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27673.html
South Carolina Dramatically Expands Experience Rating and Disqualifies Seasonal Employees
A new tier system took effect in 2011 placing employers in one of 20 tiers (up from 15) based on benefit ratio and unemployment claims over the previous seven years. 53 percent of South Carolina businesses have had zero unemployment claims and are in Tier 1 ($10 per employee per year), a dramatic tax reduction. Businesses with the most unemployment claims are in Tier 20 ($1,127 per employee per year). Some 30 percent of employers thus saw an increase in UI taxes of 100 percent to 600 percent. New employers are placed in Tier 12 for their first year of operation.
The state will reduce the maximum length of benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, beginning in July 2012. The definition of seasonal employees (ineligible during the off-season) is changed as of January 2012 to regularly recurring periods of 36 consecutive weeks, the longest period used for such a definition. The state also increases the taxable wage base from $7,000 to $10,000 in 2011, $12,000 in 2012, and $14,000 in 2015.
My guess is that they have given you eligiblity for 18 weeks instead of 26. I bet the premium increase refers to badwill -- they will not charge them (raise their premium) for your dismissal. OR it refers to your eligibility for health insurance premium assistance. That your amount is lowered to reflect the reduction of benefits by 8 weeks. But I am guessing.

I know it isn't great information - but maybe a start? I will work some more tomorrow - providing my kids' hand-me-down laptop doesn't implode. Goodnight, dear Star

 

[Star*]

Ummmmmmmm........that's incredible, but I don't speak lawyer-ease. I'm a simple star. I get the part about the 18 and 26 weeks - I'm still fighting for the insurance they took - but I don't understand the top part.

Thank you for your incredible knowledge though. I think what you're saying is - File another appeal, and tell them, I had NO intent - and no write ups? Even though the judge is saying I saw the writen rules and signed on the line about them? Do I kinda have that right?

 

[Signorina]

Star-the statute clearly states deliberate disregard (you can concede that you disregarded written policy but deliberate? Your mgr watched! Tacit approval in my opinion ) AND (not "or"!!) at least one prior written warning! You didn't get a warning afaik. And the burden of proof is on the employer. I think that's grounds to appeal the decision. First you need to find out what the reduction in benefits actually means though and if you want to appeal it- I would quote the statute right back to them.

Happy to help-once I get a keyboard & screen!