Do I have to accept a job if my company is sold to new owners?

by: Anonymous

yes you would because you were terminated from your original company and it wasn’t your fault.

You know what anonymous, I think it’s great you want to help someone out, but would you mind giving a complete answer, and possibly try to qualify it with a little more detailed reasoning?

Yes you would, what Anonymous?

Get unemployment? Or be able to refuse suitable?

I think your advice is way off base,

Chris

by: Anonymous2

well this is the thing, 1) you were fired from the old company so if you appy for unemployment your not going to have a hearing agianst the new owners because they are not the ones the unemployment is going to be paid by. They will asked for the old owners if a hearing is set. Now as for refusing suitable work, im sure the new owners were not going to give you; same hours, same days of work, same rate of pay, and same benefits as your last employeer i.e. old owners, so its not suitable work. Example say you worked sat and sun 8 to midnight every week and now the new owners want you to work night audit mon to fri, if you can not work this because of children, school, or voluntary work,then it is not considered “suitable work”

Whatever, Do you know what an informational letter is? Have you ever seen a report unemployment fraud button on a state unemployment website? Do you know if the sale had some sort of predecessor/successor clause?

The real point is whether the work is suitable as defined by any given state’s relevant precedent regarding what is suitable work. Not to mention, whether the offer was made before the first job was terminated or whether the old owner and the new owner might be transferring a SUTA and even working together to minimize liabilities of UI via the transition that has to occur.

These types of claims often wind up having two appeal hearings.. The original employer is a valid lack of work claim and then a refusal of suitable work, which can stop even the benefits from a valid lack of work claim, because the the continuing eligibility requirements to collect ongoing benefits.

Too many assumptions that all will go well, for me anyway.

Chris

by: Jason

Though unemployment qualifications vary from state to state, anytime you are terminated from your job through no fault of your own you are entitled to receive benefits. Refusing suitable work can disqualify you, yes, however that is not the decision to be made by your unemployment office until you are drawing benefits, these circumstances completely depend on your old owners approach.

If you refuse the new owners employment the old owner may fight to null any benefits through a series of hearings, but even then the old owner wouldn’t waste his time doing so because he no longer owns a business, he is no longer liable for the employee. In a nutshell, you should have no issue receiving your unemployment.
-Jason

The old owner wouldn’t waste his time doing so because he no longer owns a business

Bull.

Chris

by: Anonymous

You are an argumentative jerk, and not helping

by: Chris – Unemployment-Tips.com

Agumentative? Probably.

A jerk? Probably guilty of being one of those too, but not so much as to be unlike most other people.

But not helping? Now that’s not a fair statement.

I’m thinking helping depends on what the argument is about and just maybe what side of it you’re on.

But again, there’s always going to be jerks who simply disagree with a point of view, including yours.

by: Anonymous

I am no lawyer, so not legal advise…

However, if one were to assume the new job offers leave a lot to be desired compared to lost positions, this sounds to me like possibly criminal conspiracy to commit unemployment fraud for one. If old owner also still owns other hotels, possibly also collusion/anti-trust issues and a good foundation for a class action lawsuit involving the employees fired/re-read.

And for the first few to report, possible rewards for reporting government waste, fraud and abuse (civil war era law that has potential for higher rewards than reporting any other kind of crime since based on gov cost differentials).

My advice, find a law firm willing to handle possible issues ASAP.

by: Chris

I’m not a lawyer either Anonymous, but just for the record, it may be important at this point to review the question that was originally asked.

“Do I have to accept the job, if my company is sold to new owners and I was given a letter of termination from the original company that hired me?”

As well as the details, including the one that struck me as being important to whether they would collect, if they were actually paid for even one day of work by the last employer they had, if they had refused the offer.

“The hotel I work for was recently sold to another owner. The original management company that hired me gave all employees a letter of termination.”

The new owners have agreed to hire everyone if they want to continue in their same position on a 90 day trial period.

I didn’t see any mention of the new offer also possessing some substantial change to the terms and conditions of the previous employment that would stand the test of good cause to refuse, but just the following,.

If I don’t want to continue working for this new ownership company, would I be able to apply for unemployment.”

I didn’t think it was safe to assume much, except if the person refused the offer of suitable employment (given they stated it would be the SAME position), a likely scenario for the person refusing, would eventually include someone needing to appeal a denial for either “refusal of suitable work, or as it appears in other states, since statement of the issue varies state to state, “voluntarily quitting suitable work”.

Of course this person would be allowed to apply for unemployment, whether they had good cause, or not and no matter which way the issue might be stated if denied, or allowed benefits initially, but still subject to being appealed.

However, the cause for termination from the first employer, at least in this case, is one I think can safely be assumed to be a lack of work, i.e. still a discharge, but when the former employer has no obvious argument to say it was for misconduct and therefore, the fault of the employee.

The problem I was thinking about, but didn’t make any assumptions about, was because I know when a company is sold to another company, the terms and conditions of the sale, often relate to some UI issues having to do with which employer’s SUTA would be charged for any lack of work claims, or to get to the problem, which individual employer’s” State Unemployment Tax Accounts would be held liable for any benefits that might be paid, even if caused by a layoff.

The issue I was thinking of as it appears hearing notices, often includes two words I used to only think of as an employer issue. Predecessor / Successor and whether there were any conditions pertaining to the transfer of one employer’s experience rating, to the other.

I think I understand where you were going with the point you made about conspiracy and needing an attorney though.

This situation can potentially be criminal, or unemployment fraud by a business, if they would be so brazen as to attempt to manipulate or escape its own UI tax rate and work around laws written to prevent prevent SUTA Dumping.

However, you lost me when I read this,

“And for the first few to report, possible rewards for reporting government waste, fraud and abuse (civil war era law that has potential for higher rewards than reporting any other kind of crime since based on gov cost differentials).”