Denied Unemployment After Employer Layoff and Relocation

My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: California

Hello all!

I have an unemployment claim issue. I worked at a company for 6 months and they notified they were closing. They, however, said i wasn't terminated but placed me on a employment hold until November when they were to reopen at a new location. While I was technically not fired, I wouldn't have received pay until the new location opened (i would have to apply for my old position[s] once it opened).

Long story short I quit in lieu of being on-hold with no pay. Applied for benefits and employer submitted counter-claim and i was denied benefits because i "didn't explore all my options"

I appealed, saw a ALJ and put my case forward insisting the employer left me no choice, employer was a no-show. I didn't receive any letter from the appeals board and when i contacted EDD they stated it was still pending. This went on for 3 months until recent, i contacted them and they said the case was closed because the employer didn't respond to the appeals. they cited the same decision from the EDD rep and said i had the right to appeal again.

At this point i'm not sure how to approach this matter. i haven't seen any benefits in 6 months and i could really use the help.

You should have filed for the time you were off between the switch of locations. You had the job lined up and refused to take it when it became open.

I'm not surprised you were denied, and to be honest I don't see a different result if you appeal again. If you had accepted being on-hold and applied for unemployment, I expect you would have been approved. But it is very difficult to get unemployment when you quit.

Agree. You quit.
You shouldn't have quit. You should have just filed for unemployment and would likely have been approved for temporary benefits and could have looked for another job during the hold period.
You can certainly appeal again but I don't think much of your chances.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

I have an unemployment claim issue. I worked at a company for 6 months and they notified they were closing. They, however, said i wasn't terminated but placed me on a employment hold until November when they were to reopen at a new location. While I was technically not fired, I wouldn't have received pay until the new location opened (i would have to apply for my old position[s] once it opened).

---

Technically, you were FIRED. When the employer closes it's doors and says that you have to reapply at the new location when it opens, that is being fired. You complicated things by the way you told the story.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

I appealed, saw a ALJ and put my case forward insisting the employer left me no choice, employer was a no-show. I didn't receive any letter from the appeals board and when i contacted EDD they stated it was still pending. This went on for 3 months until recent, i contacted them and they said the case was closed because the employer didn't respond to the appeals. they cited the same decision from the EDD rep and said i had the right to appeal again.

---

Not sure what you said at the hearing but, "the employer left me no choice," wasn't it. You should have said, "they closed the place I worked, said I'd need to reapply, and there was no definite time at which I'd be recalled."

The next part of your story that makes no sense is that you had to call to get the decision. After an ALJ hearing, you get at least a two page write up of the "findings of fact," and the "reasoning and conclusions of law." They'd have said a lot more than "you didn't explore all options." You need to call to get the official decision and read it. You won't be able to write an effective board of review appeal without it assuming you even need to. I think you should have been approved for benefits.

Also, were you filing your biweekly claims while this was going on? I just can't imagine CA dropping the ball like this. EDD issues written denials (about two paragraphs) within 3 weeks, hearings are held in about 6 weeks after you submit your appeal request, and the written decisions come in 10 days after that. If you didn't file your claim forms, it's possible that CA treated things as an abandoned claim, and that would sort of explain why you're only doing something now 6 months after applying.

No, he was not "technically fired". He was laid off, which is not the same thing. He had a reasonable expectation of rehire within a reasonable period of time. That's not a firing by any definition.

Read the case law. When you have to reapply for your job, that's a firing. Even when the employer calls it a lay off, in the absence of a firm date of recall, it's considered an indefinite lay off, and is treated as a discharge. Failing to reapply isn't even a refusal of work.

Thank you for all the replies!

I know now it probably wasn't the best option based on your replies. There were two factors i considered when making this decision:

1. I wasn't guaranteed re-employment and definetly not at the same position/pay-scale, i had to apply again for my position, or any position to which i could potentially be rejected. They did this office-wide to everyone, many chose to quit. Some took up the "employment-hold" and got denied UI benefits because they were technically still employed (from what i'm told).

2.I didn't want to work there anymore, even in the future, because of harassment from the owner.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

Read the case law. When you have to reapply for your job, that's a firing. Even when the employer calls it a lay off, in the absence of a firm date of recall, it's considered an indefinite lay off, and is treated as a discharge. Failing to reapply isn't even a refusal of work.

---

Thanks chyvan, do you know which case law i can look to for this information? Since i technically "quit" does it still apply here?

And yes, i felt they dropped the ball i was calling at least every other day for 3 months following the ALJ case and kept getting "the case is pending". Its not until i called a week ago they told me the case was closed due to employer's failure to respond to appeal. when i inquired more they said they would send a letter and if i didn't like it then i could complain to The President.

The only way you "quit," is if you left before the last day of available work. By that I mean, if they told you on Monday that they'd closing up shop on Friday, and you said, "I'm out of here now," then you quit. If you worked up until the last day, and there was then no job for you to go to, you were fired.

So what really happened? Did you quit, as in you didn't work until your work location closed, or were you fired, you worked until there was no job for you to go to? It's unfortunate that you see this as you quitting because I'm sure that it was you that caused all your own problems. Those other people that were on "employment-hold" were eligible, and if they said things wrong, took the first denial as gosspel, and didn't appeal, that's on them.

You need that decision before you can consider appealing again. That hearing with the ALJ forms the basis for all further appeals. If you told this story wrong at the hearing, there may be no point in appealing. However, if you did get in the key points then appeal it again, and stop saying that you quit.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

The only way you "quit," is if you left before the last day of available work. By that I mean, if they told you on Monday that they'd closing up shop on Friday, and you said, "I'm out of here now," then you quit. If you worked up until the last day, and there was then no job for you to go to, you were fired.

So what really happened? Did you quit, as in you didn't work until your work location closed, or were you fired, you worked until there was no job for you to go to? It's unfortunate that you see this as you quitting because I'm sure that it was you that caused all your own problems. Those other people that were on "employment-hold" were eligible, and if they said things wrong, took the first denial as gosspel, and didn't appeal, that's on them.

You need that decision before you can consider appealing again. That hearing with the ALJ forms the basis for all further appeals. If you told this story wrong at the hearing, there may be no point in appealing. However, if you did get in the key points then appeal it again, and stop saying that you quit.

---

Yes you are right, they told us the last day was a friday a week and a half in advance. I handed in my resignation on Wednesday before the Friday and i worked until the Friday, I even closed because there was hardly anybody left.

From now on i will refrain from saying i quit, that's what the employer submitted to the EDD.

I will update once i get the letter from EDD!

What did you put in your letter of resignation? It might be really hard to undo that if you wrote things wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is, chyvan, and show us this case law.

Why? In the recent past, you admitted to not reading a link I posted and verifying it for yourself. Besides that, it doesn't much matter in this case because I suspect the claimant was his own worst enemy.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

What did you put in your letter of resignation? It might be really hard to undo that if you wrote things wrong.

---

i focused on the harassment and working conditions in my resignation. i mentioned that my unemployment was uncertain, as well, and couldn't survive with no pay.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

i focused on the harassment and working conditions in my resignation.

---

Then that is a huge problem. The whole thrust was you had no job to go to any more. Was the closing of the work location addressed at your hearing? The judge is only considers what is brought up at the hearing. They aren't mind readers.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured you'd say. You're really good at claiming law but not so much at backing it up. Tends to make me think there isn't any case law that says what you want the law to say.

The OP has asked for a link to the case law, too.

The one thing I agree with absolutely is that the OP shot himself in the foot. But not because he was "technically fired" - that's complete and utter nonsense and if you knew half of what you think you know about employment law, you'd know why.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

Then that is a huge problem. The whole thrust was you had no job to go to any more. Was the closing of the work location addressed at your hearing? The judge is only considers what is brought up at the hearing. They aren't mind readers.

---

yes, sorry, i hit enter before i finished typing i edited my post before i saw your reply. it was the main issue i brought up with the ALJ, also citing the working conditions, the employer was a no-show.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured you'd say. You're really good at claiming law but not so much at backing it up. Tends to make me think there isn't any case law that says what you want the law to say.

The OP has asked for a link to the case law, too.

The one thing I agree with absolutely is that the OP shot himself in the foot. But not because he was "technically fired" - that's complete and utter nonsense and if you knew half of what you think you know about employment law, you'd know why.

---

Thanks CBG, i admit i am no lawyer but i thought i was doing what was best. From my understanding, those who did take the on-hold status are still unemployed (office is now open again) and have been denied benefits anyway. i can't say if they have appealed though.

Edit:
I will update further once i know exactly what the EDD has sent me.

On what basis have their benefits been denied? I can completely understand why you were denied but unless there's something major you haven't told us, there's really no reason why they should.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured you'd say. You're really good at claiming law but not so much at backing it up. Tends to make me think there isn't any case law that says what you want the law to say.

---

Happy? http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,5

"The question presented by this appeal is whether workers on indefinite layoff are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when they refuse to accept recall offers in the course of a trade dispute."

"We consider that, where the employees have no contractual right to recall within any specified time period, the better approach is to treat such layoffs as indefinite, thereby terminating any employment relationship 975*975 consistent with Department of Labor Program Letter 984. " and they even used my favorite DOL UIPL 984 in reaching that determination.

And from here http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Miscondu...dFromDischarge

"A layoff for an indefinite period, or for an unreasonable length of time, or where there is no contemplation that the employee will resume his or her work in the future, may sever the employer-employee relationship. In such cases there can be no leaving after the date of such a layoff."

Had he done things differently, he would have had no trouble stating he was fired, and had no duty to reapply. Doesn't mean that the employer wouldn't have called him and made him an actual offer when the new location was ready, but someone refusing to reapply is no refusal of work for UI purposes.

Well. I'm impressed. You actually posted something. There's hope for you yet.

However, neither link applies. Which does not surprise me.

In the first case, there's the little matter of the fact that it was a union strike situation, which does not apply here. The rules changes when unions and strikes are involved. The employees in that link were on strike. That is NOT the same situation at all.

The other link you provided discusses indefinite layoffs. Which this was not.

What makes you think it wasn't indefinite? The new location would be open in November. Without an exact date to return to work, that makes it indefinite. Then you have the poster saying he had to reapply and may or may not be rehired or given the same job. Again, that makes it indefinite. Then he says he applied 6 months ago. Meaning that from sometime in July until some inexact date in November, he was susposed to be in limbo, and I say that's too long. Also suggesting, indefinite layoff. The employer-employee relationship has been severed for UI purposes.

The first example regardless of the union doesn't change anything. Since the claimants were on indefinite layoff, they were able to use the "new work" rule that allowed them not to cross the picket line. Had they not been on indefinite layoff, that provision wouldn't have been available to them. The union thing did nothing to change whether this was a severing of the employer-employee relationship. That was determined by the circumstances and the dates. The season ended in August for an undetermined about of time, and then the employer attempted to recall them in September.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

Happy? http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,5

"The question presented by this appeal is whether workers on indefinite layoff are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when they refuse to accept recall offers in the course of a trade dispute."

"We consider that, where the employees have no contractual right to recall within any specified time period, the better approach is to treat such layoffs as indefinite, thereby terminating any employment relationship 975*975 consistent with Department of Labor Program Letter 984. " and they even used my favorite DOL UIPL 984 in reaching that determination.

And from here http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Miscondu...dFromDischarge

"A layoff for an indefinite period, or for an unreasonable length of time, or where there is no contemplation that the employee will resume his or her work in the future, may sever the employer-employee relationship. In such cases there can be no leaving after the date of such a layoff."

Had he done things differently, he would have had no trouble stating he was fired, and had no duty to reapply. Doesn't mean that the employer wouldn't have called him and made him an actual offer when the new location was ready, but someone refusing to reapply is no refusal of work for UI purposes.

---

I haven't received the letter from EDD yet but I thought I would respond as i found this information very helpful, thank you for posting.

@cbg
I WILL be appealing this case but I want to increase my chances and knowledge of WHY the denial was valid ("Didn't explore all my options") before i go in because, like it has been stated already, the same defense may not save me here, even though i feel it is valid.

Just a quick few points:
1. The office closure was indefinite, there were only plans to re-open at a new location, if there was enough money in budget, within a certain month, November.
2. Nobody was guaranteed a job/pay, they may offer you A position, but it didn't have to be the one you used to have. Many people who took the offer got no such offer.

At this point, it's more about how to fight EDD's claim that I "didn't explore all my options" and why I didn't receive my ALJ response at all, I had to call for 3 months just to finally get some type of generic closure.

If you will explain to me why the employees who did accept the hold were denied, I will be in a much better position to help you address the question of "exploring all your options".

chyvan, if you can't understand why a union strike makes this a completely separate situation, there is no hope for you. I won't even address your definition of "indefinite" - that's too nonsensical to acknowledge. Although I will grant that the facts the OP provided in his most recent post make it possible that the definition could fly. It's a moot point, however, since the OP still quit and was not "technically fired" no matter how you slice it.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

I have an unemployment claim issue. I worked at a company for 6 months and they notified they were closing. They, however, said i wasn't terminated but placed me on a employment hold until November when they were to reopen at a new location.

---

It's December, almost January -- is the new location now open, and did you apply for a position?

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

Long story short I quit in lieu of being on-hold with no pay. Applied for benefits and employer submitted counter-claim and i was denied benefits because i "didn't explore all my options"

---

That description of the denial doesn't convey much information. What options were you to explore?

The problem here sounds like it has to do with your choice to resign, and perhaps the content of your letter of resignation. Did you describe the circumstances of your resignation in your letter -- the fact that you were being laid off, with your 'last day' being the date the employer had already defined as the date the existing location of the business was closing?

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

Some took up the "employment-hold" and got denied UI benefits because they were technically still employed (from what i'm told).

---

That doesn't make sense, either.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

2. I didn't want to work there anymore, even in the future, because of harassment from the owner.

---

That takes us back to the nature and timing of your resignation. It's possible that the reasons for the denial relate to what you wrote in that letter, with your resignation being interpreted as a supervening or superseding event that renders the layoff irrelevant to your eligibility.

Without more information, it's really difficult to try to determine the reasoning for the denial of benefits.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

If you will explain to me why the employees who did accept the hold were denied, I will be in a much better position to help you address the question of "exploring all your options".

chyvan, if you can't understand why a union strike makes this a completely separate situation, there is no hope for you. I won't even address your definition of "indefinite" - that's too nonsensical to acknowledge. Although I will grant that the facts the OP provided in his most recent post make it possible that the definition could fly. It's a moot point, however, since the OP still quit and was not "technically fired" no matter how you slice it.

---

for your first part, i spoke with several individuals but only one explained why they got denied. Once the new office did open, at a new location further away, they offered this individual a position but it would be a dramatic drop in salary and title. They were there for 22 years and would bumped down from management to light clerical. from my understanding, the remaining waited for their new position, got no offer, applied for UI and denied. I think most just took it for face-value and walked, i cannot say as they would not explain why, they moved on and we don't speak anymore.

@Mr. Knowitall, new location open, no I didn't apply.

Summary: Employer closed shop, encouraged people to "wait and see." Those who did either got no offer or a much lower position, to which they turned down. EDD keeps giving me the runaround on what my options were when they say "I didn't explore all my options"

Did you actually see the "didn't explore all options" in writing.

Read these http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntar...r_Decision.htm particularly D. and E. What happens is that you said you quit because you saw it that way. They then looked for something that fit based on the version you told, what the employer might have said, and your letter of resignation if it was submitted.

You might have then thought that you had to somehow prove that you explored all the options, but the truth was that you needed to prove that this was a case of the employer saying, "you're fired," and then you saying, "you can't fire me, I quit." It all hinged on what happened first. For UI, you can't really quit after being fired, but when you do what you did, you can sure make it look that way when you don't realize the effect it will have.

Do you still have copies of the paperwork that you received prior to your hearing? It's about 20 pages. You can look through there to see if there is any hope of cherry picking stuff to paint a more accurate picture of what really happened. It was admitted into evidence at the beginning of the hearing, so it's all fair game and is not consider new evidence if you have to go to the board of review.

Because of what you were told on the phone and the parrotting of the earlier decision, I'm just not so sure that your ALJ even wrote one, or it made it to EDD. There would have been so much more than just a five-word summary of the decision. Instead of calling EDD, have you tried calling the CUIAB? Those decisions quite often get processed manually. The judge might have awarded benefits, and the decision never made it to EDD or someone in EDD just didn't do what they were supposed to. You certainly should have received the decision in the mail. This story just doesn't fit the pattern others have told me they experienced.

Did the other employees apply for UI at the time that the hold began? (If not, why not?) Or did they wait until the new office opened and they did not get an offer/turned down the position? The answer would be different depending on which it is.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Did the other employees apply for UI at the time that the hold began? (If not, why not?) Or did they wait until the new office opened and they did not get an offer/turned down the position? The answer would be different depending on which it is.

---

the one that was offered the lower position and refused applied at time of refusal of the new job in November. The others applied right after the office closed.
I only received a yellow paper with the very basic info on it, basically with specifics of my hearing: Time, date Me vs Employer, etc...

UPDATE: i received the letter from EDD, it simply states:

Code:

---

E. Working Conditions Not Intolerable - Did Not Grieve

You quit your last job with (employer name) because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit. After considering available information, the Department finds that you did not meet the legal requirements for payment of benefits.

---

it's one page with an appeal form. nothing else (except the same form in some other languages). it looks like they focused on the harassment part and ignored the office closure.

Is there no recourse for receiving the proper documentation from EDD? it doesn't even seem like the judge entered a verdict

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

the one that was offered the lower position and refused applied at time of refusal of the new job in November. The others applied right after the office closed.
I only received a yellow paper with the very basic info on it, basically with specifics of my hearing: Time, date Me vs Employer, etc...

UPDATE: i received the letter from EDD, it simply states:

Code:

---

E. Working Conditions Not Intolerable - Did Not Grieve

You quit your last job with (employer name) because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit. After considering available information, the Department finds that you did not meet the legal requirements for payment of benefits.

---

it's one page with an appeal form. nothing else (except the same form in some other languages). it looks like they focused on the harassment part and ignored the office closure.

Is there no recourse for receiving the proper documentation from EDD? it doesn't even seem like the judge entered a verdict

---

what did you tell them? The statement that you quit because the working conditions were intolerable has nothing to do with your situation. There were no working conditions because you were terminated. You couldn't quit because you didn't have a job to quit.

Everybody should have been able to obtain UI benefits (if otherwise qualified) simply because you were not given any hours. Your lack of income is adequate to trigger benefits.

There is a HUGE factor that we are missing here. I don't know if you're withholding it; if you haven't mentioned it because you don't think it was important; or if you don't know what it is, but there is NO reason why the ones who applied as soon as they were placed on hold should be denied. I can understand why you were denied; you quit. I can make sense of the one who waited till November - I would have expected him to get it but I can sort of get that one. I cannot see ANY reason why the ones who applied as soon as their employment was placed on hold would be denied, and I suspect whatever we are missing is the key to the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

There is a HUGE factor that we are missing here. I don't know if you're withholding it; if you haven't mentioned it because you don't think it was important; or if you don't know what it is, but there is NO reason why the ones who applied as soon as they were placed on hold should be denied. I can understand why you were denied; you quit. I can make sense of the one who waited till November - I would have expected him to get it but I can sort of get that one. I cannot see ANY reason why the ones who applied as soon as their employment was placed on hold would be denied, and I suspect whatever we are missing is the key to the whole thing.

---

Thank you cbg, i hope you are having a good start to a new year.

No, not withholding anything except the specific details of the harassment, which i have an attorney for and cannot say. From what i was told from these other employees that's what happened, maybe they really messed up on their interview because our employer fought every claim.

The facts haven't changed.
1. They told everyone the office was closing as of June 1, they told everyone to be on call for new positions if and when the new office opened in November.
2. I didn't believe them, i quit, believing it was the best option. I noted the harassment and the office closure in my resignation. maybe i gave too much detail and they used it against me.
3. EDD denied my first claim because of E. "I didn't explore all my options":

Quote:

---

E. Working Conditions Not Intolerable - Did Not Grieve

You quit your last job with (employer name) because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit. After considering available information, the Department finds that you did not meet the legal requirements for payment of benefits.

---

4. Appealed, went to appeal, employer no-show. detailed the harassment along with the office closing, provided the evidence of the harassment, employer admitted to closing the office originally.
5. No update from EDD or Appeals Board, when contacted they stated case was still pending.
6. new office reopened, none of the old employees were re-hired, offered their original job or close to the salary of the original salary.
7. contacted EDD still no reply to case. Come mid-December, case is "closed" without notice and they sent me the reason, only by request, which stated (1 page in length):

Quote:

---

E. Working Conditions Not Intolerable - Did Not Grieve

You quit your last job with (employer name) because you felt the working conditions were intolerable. You did not explore all reasonable solutions before you quit. After considering available information, the Department finds that you did not meet the legal requirements for payment of benefits.

---

8. no other documentation was given to me, i did not receive anything from the appeals board and doesn't even seem like the judge issued a verdict on the matter.

what i want to do now:
1.I want to go in for my second appeal, I have nothing to lose now, at this point i don't know what i'm allowed to do. Can I introduce new evidence?
2.should i focus on the office closure or the harassment(being the reason they denied me)?
3.why wasn't i given proper documentation, is their any recourse for not receiving any documentation?
4. why didn't the judge issue a official verdict?

i am at a total loss here...

I'm still trying to figure out how you quit a job you didn't have. Once they furloughed you ( I tire of the laid off, fired, terminated argument because in reality it all means the same thing in your situation), you may have been on their employee roles for some internal purposes but you did not in fact have a job.

Beyond that, why did you belueve you had to quit? You were not scheduled to work and until some point in the future you couldn't even apply for a new position so if you had simply filed for ui with the statement the offered you no hours, you wouldn't be in this pickle.

Look at the date of this newest determination. Is it dated for the date they mailed it? If so, you're within the appeal window. Regardless that the judge issued, didn't issue, didn't route it correctly, this could be a lucky break. You can get a new hearing, and do a much better job and forget the harassment aspect. You can testify that you didn't understand that having a job with no hours was the same as being unemployed and that your letter of resignation was completely unnecessary. You can take a picture of your old work location and submit that to show that it's closed. The new location might be operating under a different name suggesting that it wasn't really the same entity. You can call the old work number and if it gives a disconnected message, you can play that at your hearing for the judge. There are things you can do if you get a new hearing to undo what you've done.

However, I can't see your paperwork so be sure that if the original hearing is just nonexistant, you can treat this as though you are only just now getting your first chance to appeal.

It can happen. It happened to me, but not with the AJL. I was at the board of review panel stage, and I submitted an appeal. I got the exact same decision in the mail that the solo board of review judge issued. I called and the board of review decision mailed to me in July was just missing, so I just resubmitted it again, and they treated it as current because of the way the paperwork was handled. It cost me 8 weeks in the process but I was able to touch up my written appeal because I found some errors so it might have helped that I had the extra time.

The way I understand it, jk, and maybe the OP can clarify if I'm wrong, they had been told of an upcoming layoff, hold, RIF, whatever term peels your potatoes, but before the date of the anticipated closing, the OP resigned and did not stay till the close itself.

Quote:

---

Quoting loki84

---

Yes you are right, they told us the last day was a friday a week and a half in advance. I handed in my resignation on Wednesday before the Friday and i worked until the Friday, I even closed because there was hardly anybody left.

---

He worked until the very end.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

the OP resigned and did not stay till the close itself.

---

No wonder you keep thinking he quit.

And he did. The quotes you've put above say so. While I may have been mistaken about when he worked to, he did turn in a resignation letter. That's a quit, and no way of twisting it can change that.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And he did. The quotes you've put above say so. While I may have been mistaken about when he worked to, he did turn in a resignation letter. That's a quit, and no way of twisting it can change that.

---

but how can you quit a job you don't have? Either the op is not being accurate with the timeline or the ui folks screwed this one up. It makes no sense he would be dq'd for quitting a job that was non-existent.

The only reason to do what EDD did is because of appearances. It looks like a quit. The OP may not be able to undo what he did, but I hope he gets a shot to fix things.

Besides that a letter of resignation doesn't always mean "quit." I wrote one, and my second to last decision the quit was converted into a discharge.

Quitting when, at least at the time, it appears that there is a legitimate reason to believe he will be recalled, even if he has to put in a pro-forma application and even if it's at a different location, is not the same thing as quitting when there is no realistic belief that there will be work in the foreseeable future.

Using your logic, he was still eligible for benefits from the last day until he could have gone back to work.