Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Under most state laws, none of the mentioned employees would likely qualify for unemployment, as drunkenness and horseplay would likely be considered "serious misconduct." If there was a rule against use of personal telephones on the floor, I would expect that the one fired for texting would also be denied benefits.
|
I suspect that they would receive unemployment.
The definition of serious misconduct varies from state to state, but is generally defined as conduct that is "harmful to the interests of the employer, and must be done intentionally or in disregard of the employer's interests." At various levels of the claims and appeal process, the benefits could be denied. However, if the claim gets to an ALJ, all bets are off. I'd suspect that most of the ALJ's that I've seen would not deem texting as misconduct, particularly if there were no prior warnings that such behavior could result in discharge. If there were no warning, and company policy specifically stated that an employee could be terminated for texting, an ALJ might decide that the employer might term an employee for violation of policy, but the violation of policy was not misconduct as defined by the state.
The individual doing damage to equipment would likely be eligible for unemployment, unless the employer could prove that the employee deliberately damaged the equipment. As you're likely aware, in unemployment hearings the employer has the burden of proof to demonstrate why a claim should be denied. The employer would have to have significant proof that the employee's actions were intentional. Not an easy thing to do. So, I strongly believe the claim would be allowed.
Drunkenness? 50/50. Did the employer actually see the employees drinking? Did the employer send the employees for a reasonable - suspicion breathalyzer or blood test? If there isn't proof that the employees were intoxicated, then it comes down to whether their horseplay met the definition of misconduct. Without more facts, and assuming that this employer is like many who terminate but fail to adequately document, the employees have a pretty good chance at a hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
I expect that most of the folks involved in the OWS movement have more serious concerns and are likely more responsible than someone who gets fired for showing up to work drunk.
|
Serious concerns like getting laid by their fellow protestors, blocking traffic, or trashing police cars?