General manager

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Actually in small businesses, where the owner is directly involved and there aren't many employees, and when the employer is sort of a conflict avoider, this situation is fairly common.

Sadly, the world is full of such cowards.

 

[not2cleverRed]

The idea that no one but the boss of bosses or company owner can fire you is right up there with the old chestnut about 'you aren't the one who hired me, so you can't fire me!"

Actually in small businesses, where the owner is directly involved and there aren't many employees, and when the employer is sort of a conflict avoider, this situation is fairly common. They want to give the dirty work to someone else, and I bet this guy is now the general manager, don't you?

And the OP doesn't need to worry. If he was told to leave by someone who says they were acting as a representative of the employer, and he is not able to reach the employer directly despite his good faith efforts to do so, the unemployment claims taker will not just say, "Oops, he quit, no unemployment." They'll check, after taking statements from both parties and see who's the most believable. There's a big difference between another employee, particularly a subordinate who's just jacking with you by telling you that you're fired (great fantasy, by the way!) and someone who's been officially designated to tell you this and then the owner won't follow up and has made himself unavailable. A reasonable person will be able to figure it out.

Just the same, it's in OP's best interest to get something in writing... I would think a responsible employer would at least hand the axe man a letter with the owner's signature on it to pass on to OP, if only to lend the asst manager credibility in the firing. Asst manager should only have been handing OP a letter stating OP was fired, informed OP he was acting on behalf of the owner, and made no further statements about OP's day off or past employment.

Otherwise, what's to keep other guy from just saying, "Who, me? I didn't say anything. OP just stopped showing up." And he may come across as credible.

Would it help OP to start a paper trail of communication attempts with the owner. Would it help for OP to send, certified mail, a letter to the owner stating that it is OP's understanding, based on what the asst manager stated as a representative of the owner, that the owner has terminated OP's employment as of xyz date? And that OP has been unable to confirm this with the owner by [other means]. With some polite blather about how it has been an honor and pleasure to work there.

 

[commentator]

No, not really, because actually when you have this much contact after YOU are saying they told you that you were fired, it looks more and more like they actually accepted a resignation. The other employee could very well testify (if he were interested in keeping his new general manager job) that you walked in and told him you were quitting. All this blah blah blah paper trail isn't necessary, and does make it seem more like it's your idea or that you have felt no qualms about continuing to stay in touch with the company owner after he supposedly fired you third hand.

When you are fired, you are usually told to leave the workplace and barred from coming around. If the guy had shown up at this place of business again at his regular work time, they very well might've called and had him removed by the police, which would've been a nasty scene all around. I think he did the right thing to just leave, attempt to contact the owner, and then assume he was fired.

You say you might think a responsible business owner would at least give the guy a letter....or something. Well, I sort of had delusions about this sort of thing until, in the later part of my career, I began to work with employers instead of claimants. I never met such a group of thoroughly irresponsible, mean spirited, oh well.....there were some nice ones. But trust me, I have seen many cases where people worked and came into work one morning and found the doors locked and the owner swooped, owing the last month's wages, too. I have seen people fired and then an entire personnel file full of warnings and reprimands manufactured to fit the termination. I could go on and on.

And the unemployment investigator who's making the decision here isn't going to make this a CSI case. Anybody can fake papers and letters they supposedly wrote to the employer, employee, etc. Those types of paper trails have very little weight. And yes, it would be nice if an employer always felt it mandatory to give a terminated employee a letter or separation notice. Some do. A whole lot do not. And even in states like mine, where it is supposed to be a law that the employer is to give you a separation notice within a certain amount of time after you are terminated, this law is useless, has no teeth in it, and if you waste a lot of time trying to get a separation notice discussing cause before you file a claim for unemployment, you sometimes miss weeks of benefits, because they won't usually let you backdate, it only starts paying for weeks after when you have filed it. He should go on and file his claim for unemployment, not wait for a letter. They'll shake it all out.