|“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.”,|
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).”