Appealing an Unemployment Decision

[crsinco]

My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: Colorado

My situation is as follows:

I worked as a contractor for a company for almost five years. The entire duration of employment for this "contractor/temp agency" was working for the same company. I was hired by this company and then terminated after having worked directly for them for only three months.

I was denied benefits from the contractor company which I worked for for almost all of the five years due to: "You left this job to accept a job with the client you were working for under this temporary agency." Which is indeed correct, but I have some issues with this, and will explain in my closing section with my question.

I was granted benefits from the company for which I only directly worked as an employee for three months. However, my maximum benefits are already "exhausted" after only having recieved one week's payment. I believe this is due to having worked directly for them for such a short period of time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

Do I have a cause to appeal the decision regarding the contractor/temp agency so that I can get more than a single week's worth of benefits?

The way I see it the actual company was the employer the entire time since they were paying the contractor/temp agency for my services. I feel the entire duration of employment should be considered.

[Dogmatique]

No.

The actual company only employed you - in the strictly legal sense - for three months.

The temp agency was your employer for the prior almost-five-year period.

By all means appeal if you still have time to do so, but I do not see you being successful.

[crsinco]

Any advice on what I should use as reasons for disagreeing with the decision that may help my chances?

[Dogmatique]

Well, you need to have a reason for doing so...simply disagreeing with the decision isn't going to do it.

The temp agency was correct in what they said and did; I'm sorry but I don't see an error of law here.

They didn't terminate you - you voluntarily quit. This usually bars you from UI benefits anyway.

See where I'm coming from?

[crsinco]

• I had no choice but to quit working for the temporary agency, when offered employment by the client company.
• All of the people employed by this particular temporary agency, working at the client company, were offered employment at the client company at the same time.
• The temporary agency no longer employs anyone at this client company.
• I contacted the temporary agency immediately, upon losing my job with the client company, for employment and still have not been assigned any work.
• The previous points illustrate, had I not accepted the position at the client company, I would have been unemployed at that time.

[Dogmatique]

None of which changes the bottom line - you quit the temp agency, accepted a new position elsewhere and were then terminated. The only company liable for UI would have been the second (Client) company.

Sorry.

[PattyPA]

The temp agency may or may not be protesting you receiving benefits, necessarily, but their reserve account being charged for them.

In my previous state, I went through the same situation, except with a different new employer, was let go shortly after starting because "you don't have the experience we thought you had", temp agency protested and my benefits were reversed. This was not California, mind you, but it could happen there, too. Depends on what the state law allows them to protest, since they were not the separating employer.