Did this guy quit, or did I fire him?

[robert_columbia]

@Doctor_Jackson

…

1. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the “We agreed he should be in the office at 9:00” part. It almost sounds like he had no set core hours, but was abusing flex time - otherwise a simple “you know your set start time, don’t be late” woud have been sufficient…

Good point. I’ve had jobs where a 9 AM start time means that you’d better be seated at your desk at exactly 9 AM and also had jobs where a 9 AM start time means that you are expected to generally arrive between 8 AM and 10 AM and get your work done. If you show up at 9:20 one morning, they don’t care as long as you are getting your work done.

[Winston_Smith]

@Doctor_Jackson

Overall I’m in the “You gave him a choice and he elected to quit” camp, but several things bother me and could have bearing on whether your actions were reasonable:

1. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the “We agreed he should be in the office at 9:00” part. It almost sounds like he had no set core hours, but was abusing flex time - otherwise a simple “you know your set start time, don’t be late” woud have been sufficient.
2. The final ‘episode’, since it all happened in a phone conversation, boils down to your word against his. You say you offered him a choice of being on time or losing his job. If he says that you simply got angry and fired him, which assertion carries more weight? Hard to say without:
3. Do you have a written, distributed policy concerning employee tardiness and absences? Did the employee sign to indicate receipt of the policy? Do you have documentation of his previous tardiness/absences AND does that documentation clearly show how the employee was in violation of the written policy? Is the prior documentation acknowledged by the employee (like a signed, written counciling memo)?

If you can answer “Yes” to all of the questions in #3, you’re pretty well set. At worst it would likely be seen a firing for cause. If you answer is “No” to any of the questions, the issue has potential to become a murkey “he said/I said” cluster.

I’m deliberately leaving some details out, to protect the innocent. His scheduled, stated work day is 9-6, but he decided several weeks ago (without discussing it with me) that since he didn’t take a lunch break, he would be working 10-6. So, in the context of his absenteeism, I was addressing his chronic tardiness and reinforcing that he needed to come in for his shift at the start time I set, not the one he set without approval. My interpretation is that I told him he needed to get his shit together, and show up when I told him to, and he said “Hey, fuck you, Winston. I’ll come in when I feel like it.” Answers to all three questions in #3 are “No”, BTW.

[Winston_Smith]

@VinylTurnip

Millennial, by any chance?

Yeah

[friedo]

@Sparky812

Yep.

Which explains the message on the following day that he will not be in. He’s phishing you for a response to the effect that he’s been terminated.

I’d be inclined to suspend the employee without pay until they were to return to work to discuss their behavior and resume their regular duties. His next move is either to return to work or quit.

Check and mate!

There’s no need to do that. Employees are generally not entitled to unemployment benefits if they are fired for cause. A documented history of insubordination and chronic lateness is a reasonable cause for firing someone.

[boytyperanma]

You didn’t fire him he fired himself.

If you have a documented history of his insubordination and tardiness you can show he was fired for cause. If you lack such documentation he can probably win an unemployment claim.

I don’t miss dealing with employees like him. Even if it causes an increase in you unemployment insurance it’s worth paying to never see him again.

[Sparky812]

@friedo

There’s no need to do that. Employees are generally not entitled to unemployment benefits if they are fired for cause. A documented history of insubordination and chronic lateness is a reasonable cause for firing someone.

Sure… but why make it easy for him

[Voyager]

@Sage_Rat

Based on the descriptions given on this page, I am voting for “quit”. Specifically, these two parts:

There’s no evidence that the worker was interested in resolving any sort of grievance that may have existed between you. And given that it was you having a grievance with him, and not the other way around, and you had given a clear and reasonable method for resolving that grievance, the ball was definitely in his court.
It cannot be shown that you definitely intended to discharge (fire) the worker. Further, the worker had a completely reasonable alternative to quiting. So this example is not applicable to your case, but would be the only one that he could use in support of his position.

That page seems to cover situations where the employer has more or less forced the worker to quit by intolerable requirements, like having to break the law. I don’t think it covers this case. Requiring the employee to show up on time is hardly an intolerable requirement. If it were, the employee would be eligible for unemployment.
I think he wouldn’t be eligible, not because he voluntarily quit but because he was fired for cause.

[MysteryFellow63427]

@Honey

You told him if he wasn’t there at 9 am, not to come in at all. You fired him.

Bingo. Employee was fired, but for good cause (tardiness). No expert but if you have evidence of this you should be able to dispute his unemployment claim if need be.

[DrDeth]

@Fallen

If he files for unemployment and says you fired him, I’d say “well, no, he quit because he chose not to come in when he was directed to come into work” … explain it as you did here, complete with print-outs or pictures of his texts. .

No, what you need is * twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored Glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin’ what each one was.
*

[LurkerInNJ]

@Honey

You told him if he wasn’t there at 9 am, not to come in at all. You fired him.

This.

He’s someone else’s problem now. UI rates don’t change that much for one claim. It’s only a couple of bucks.

[Ravenman]

nm

[Honey]

@friedo

There’s no need to do that. Employees are generally not entitled to unemployment benefits if they are fired for cause. A documented history of insubordination and chronic lateness is a reasonable cause for firing someone.

Wouldn’t an ex-employee be entitled to collect after a “waiting period” based on what the cause was? I think for most everything besides theft, that’s true in most states. There is a penalty, but eventually (maybe after a couple of weeks) they would be able to collect. I could be wrong of course.

[Honey]

Sorry, after some more research I think I am mistaken.

[ElvisL1ves]

Either he quit, by not showing up when he had been advised of the consequences, or you fired him for cause, chronic tardiness which hopefully you can document. He doesn’t get unemployment either way. And it’s his own doing either way, too - you can keep a clear conscience about it.

[stillownedbysetters]

In partial answer to your question, Honey, there are still a few states who will give you partial unemployment benefits if you were fired. But they reserve the right to decide whether or not you’ll get them based on why you were fired and how long you had worked with your previous employer.

If I remember correctly (and it’s been a few years since I worked with one of those states), they reduce your entitlement by 25%.

[DrDeth]

@stillownedbysetters

In partial answer to your question, Honey, there are still a few states who will give you partial unemployment benefits if you were fired. But they reserve the right to decide whether or not you’ll get them based on why you were fired and how long you had worked with your previous employer.

If I remember correctly (and it’s been a few years since I worked with one of those states), they reduce your entitlement by 25%.

In CA you can get UE benefits even if fired unless fired for cause or given significant documented warnings for things like lateness.

[Typo_Negative]

@Winston_Smith

He texted me late Monday night, and said he would be in at 10:00 AM, as he was staying up late watching basketball.

Sam Stone: You got no nuts! What do I have to do? Put a gun in your hand, aim and pull your finger down you spineless wimp! I dare you to kill her!
[Sam hangs up]
Sam Stone: Now that oughta do it!

That’s what that seems like to me. “Fuck you and your ‘rules’. I dare you to fire me, you big pansy!!!” Which, to me, is a clear sign of quitting but still wanting to collect unemployment.

I don’t think he will get it. But for the love of GOD, tell the Unemployment Office that you intend to fight it. To the last man!

[Honey]

@stillownedbysetters

In partial answer to your question, Honey, there are still a few states who will give you partial unemployment benefits if you were fired. But they reserve the right to decide whether or not you’ll get them based on why you were fired and how long you had worked with your previous employer.

If I remember correctly (and it’s been a few years since I worked with one of those states), they reduce your entitlement by 25%.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
In CA you can get UE benefits even if fired unless fired for cause or given significant documented warnings for things like lateness.
[/QUOTE]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[Mama_Zappa]

@Fallen

…At any rate, unless you fire people fairly often, it won’t affect your unemployment payroll tax contribution rate…

I’d speculate the opposite, actually.

If you have a thousand employees and fire 5-6 a year on average, this additional firing will be within “normal” limits. Your rates might already be higher than a place that had never fired anyone, but this employee is within your normal pattern.

If you’ve never fired ANYONE though, your rates are likely rock bottom. A single firing would really affect your history.

Speaking as an employer who had a nanny for the kids, all above the table, we paid unemployment etc.: I never paid more than 20 dollars a year. When we let her go, we of course supported her unemloyment claim.

Our rates went up the next year to 400 dollars. For a single employee. As it happened, we didn’t hire another nanny so it was moot, but that’s quite a jump!

[Mr.Nylock]

Why were you having a phone conversation with him about this instead of an email conversation?