This content has been marked as final. Show 5 replies
If you Google "What constitutes subordination in the eyes of Calif" You will get your answer.
There is a lot of info on Google.
Good luck, LUCKIEST
Subordination is defined as: the quality or state of being subordinate to another. ie: inferiority of rank or dignity; the quality or state of being subordinate to authority.
I believe that you released this person for insubordination, a disrespect or unwillingness to submit to authority. You may need to resubmit your documents or get some clarification from a labor attorney.
I think you probably mean insubordination...I'm not sure about the labor laws in Ca, but I know here in Florida, if you have documented proof of the employees offenses, then when they are terminated, they will not be eligible to collect unemployment. If your ex-employee has ever been written up, or you have a log of any incidents where you have had to repremand him, this would help your case. If you have no documentation, you will probably just have to use this as a lesson learned. Prevent this in the future by having employees sign their write-up or coaching form, or whatever you want to call this particular document. That way, if the terminated employee tries to collect unemployment, you will have proof of numerous instances of having to correct his/her behavior.
Before I opened my own business, I managed at a restaurant with a 3 strikes policy. After any employee was written up 3 times, they were immediately terminated. This method has always worked for us & we have never had to pay unemployment to an ex-employment with documented insubordination/tardiness/or anything else. Good luck!
I'm not an attorney, but I have managed projects in California and believe it is an "at will" employment state, which essentially means you can fire someone for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all (so long as it's not illegal under any superceding statute like the Civil Rights Act). BUT . . . that doesn't mean the former employee won't be eligible for unemployment benefits. In general, unless the employer can prove "misconduct" (which, for legal purposes, means the employee broke the law -- i.e., assaulted someone, stole something, etc.), then the employer ends up paying unemployment.
Just wondering . . . has this been resolved? Please let us know how it turned out, and if our input was of any help. Thanks!
Go to original post
Reply to original post
I recently discharged an employee for raising his voice at me and refusing to answer a question I'd asked of him. He had been increasingly difficult and offensive to customers and other employees, but he just blew up at this particular point so I told him to leave and not come back. Other employers have said our reserve account would not be subject to charge for his unemployment benefits since he was fired for subordination, but CA EDD ruled that our account was subject to charges. Who knows what constitutes subordination in the eyes of the State of California?