Illinois Voluntary Quit 601a based on a supplemental income

To answer (speculate) about your question and what your husband might expect at HIS next referee hearing, would begin with me reading the board order .. (I know you can’t afford any real help)

Was the BOR order for an additional hearing to held so the H.O. might fully explore the information the board decided the referee had truncated, or prevented from getting onto the record .. when your husband first tried at the first hearing?

If this is the case, then no, the board is not going to make the decision, they are ordering the referee to finally do their job properly and fully explore the information then affirm, or amend the first hearing decision.

“Fully explored” is another mandated difference between initial claim determinations based upon “available information” and being required to fully delve into relevant information (testimony and/or evidence) to get at the real truth of the matter so the the law can be applied properly.

If it makes your husband feel any better .. maybe he could look at the BOR order for an additional hearing to gather additional testimony and/or evidence as sort of a reprimand from the board who decided the H.O. didn’t fulfill his duties fully while conducting that hearing.

Whether a full exploration, however, will uncover why your husband deserves to collect .. is something you might have to recollect from our previous talk.

Hi! We spoke some time ago and were unsure as to weather or not we would Appeal the ALJ decision. We did… solo, as we could not afford to hire representation. We received an answer back from the Illinois BOR remanding my husband’s case back to the ALJ (the same one and he was not nice the first time) for more info. The Board’s comments state that it was very unclear, the ALJ cut my husband off when he was trying to identify that he had a “real” full-time job with ABC and that it would appear my husband went to work (which he did for a large amount of money as a consultant just after being laid off from ABC). The BOR wants more info. The telephone hearing is tomorrow. My question, if you please, is what happens now? It’s so unclear to me. My husband is dreading this interview because frankly, he’s done with this. But I see a bit of hope that someone FINALLY realized that the last employer was NOT the supplemental employment!

Does the ALJ now make ANOTHER decision? Won’t he be aggravated that he has to go over this again? We know he wasn’t impartial the first time so I cannot imagine he would be this time. Does the BOR actually make the decision after the interview or does the referree is what I’m trying to understand? Thanks so much for everything!

Ok.

He quit Target before the layoff and that is important to his case.

The way unemployment determinations work is one for each base period employer, pt, or ft.

So, the determ and the separation from Target is essentially, it’s own island right now, but information about the date of his separation from his full-time job is important to his right to collect benefits because it was the last separation.

Not sure how Illinois works it, but in other states, including mine (CO), his claim would pay the benefits for the layoff, but the benefit amount would probably be reduced relative to the wages paid by Target during the base period when the state removed the wage credits coming from Target during the BP.

I can’t email you because the privacy terms for these “blogged Q&As says I won’t, unless you give me permission.

Given this all becomes a public web page, I spend a lot of time removing full names, addresses, email too, and phone numbers from submissions .. because anonymity is important.

The only way for me to get your phone number, or enable me to give you mine, is to send a private email.

Sorry for the hassle, but since my question was basically based on misunderstanding an important detail .. if we don’t ever talk, make sure you submit whatever proves his last day with Target was PRIOR to his last day at his full-time job and anything that can prove the contract job for after he was laid off, was the cause.

I’m really ruining your page here, I don’t know how to post these comments ;( sorry –

I wrote earlier… he did everything wrong. I meant in the eyes of unemployment. I also wrote, I went above and beyond keeping our family afloat. I meant MY HUSBAND not myself. I just find it ironic that a person can work 3 jobs, one being a full-time skilled occupation and be penalized for quitting one of the part-time jobs around the same time in order to better focus on securing a full-time employment so that his family doesn’t fall into a situation where we lose everything. At some point, rational thought should supersede law. I’ll post the decision from the hearing here when we have it just to end my story 🙂

Oh that is funny:) You thinking your comments have ruined this page! Have you looked around?

I could call this.. “Tips Gone Wild” and not be lying!!

I found two case precedents in illinois unemployment law that address our situation. That is why I wrote the 50% reduction and target became unsuitable… Because that was the argument in both cases and they both won… Eventually.

Ok, I wish I would have found you earlier. My husbands full time job laid him off on 7/6/14. He earned close to six figures at his full time job. Target earnings typically grossed $125 per week. It was pocket change but there was a significant employee discount and we used it to cut our grocery bill. It all seems odd, I know, but a series of events changed our financial situation a couple years ago and we needed extra income.

He had the target job approximately a year an a half. His last work day was 6/26. The target job became a real nightmare causing stress on our marriage, family, his health (no he wouldn’t go to a doctor) etc. He did everything wrong I’m going above and beyond what most would do to keep their family afloat. Ironic, for sure. Funny thing is that his full time employer wasn’t even MENTIONED on the determination. We just got the copy today. Sooo strange to me. His hearing is by phone (no choice) tomorrow at 10 am. I’ve never heard of what you were talking about with his contract work. I wish I knew more. I didn’t get the alert showing you had responded? I’d love you to email me personally if my email reflects on your end? I hate to write it here.

First, I want to tell you I appreciate your effort here to fill me in on some of the important details.

But, I’ve got to tell you, until I reached the part at the bottom where you said:

“I left Target PRIOR to my lay off”

I thought the adjudicator was dead wrong too to consider the quit at Target over the layoff.

“The Adjudicators’ decision in my case failed the primary purpose of Unemployment benefits as it set aside the fact that I was a full-time employee, last separated by my full-time employer, in a skilled occupation, due to no fault of my own as defined in Section 239 of the unemployment law.”

The adjudicator cannot set aside the last and most recent separation from a job when that’ the separation that controls the claim going forward.

They have to adjudicate whether based upon the reason for voluntarily quitting Target is an eligible VQ, no matter the the wages used for the benefit amount, which could actually include wages from a part time employer for a full award of total benefits that would be reduced when part-time earning are reported weekly for a partial amount.

Target might not be a BP employer now, but they could be if a second benefit year is necessary and although tax is not my specialty, I know some states insist the last employer (part-time, or not) respond and protest now, or they lose their rights to ever protest later.

The reference to Target not being chargeable is irrelevant to you, but the circumstances for the reason to separate from them is relevant.

This is often the difference between monetary determs that qualify a claim and non-monetary eligibility determinations that decide whether benefits can be paid based upon the actions of each party and whether reasonable, or not so.

“However, I would of been interested to know more about the following.

“I quit Target PRIOR to the lay off of my full-time occupation at Abc for numerous reasons that created a “good cause” situation where the employment with Target became UNSUITABLE in light of the impending substantial (more than a 50%) reduction in pay and benefits. This fact establishes a substantial and unilateral change in employment that would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner as set forth in Section 603 of the law.”

Which employer had singled your husband out for a 50% reduction?

And of course, the contract work in his field might be good cause to quit Target if that job is thought to be stop gap employment and the quit was to accept other work suitable to his prior experience in suitable work.

Stop gap is a term often used to describe the work when someone quits to attend state approved training.

So, i guess, my question is when did he quit the Target job? Before, or after the layoff from full-time employment?