Was banned from the store firing me but need to enter for evidence for unemployment

[Robert1248]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I was just fired this morning from my job i've had for the last year and am going to file for unemployment, however my employer spent the meeting we had trying to get me to say that i agreed that I should leave so that she wouldnt technically be firing me so Im worried they'll try to dispute it and would like to get my case ready just in case, but i feel like i could use a picture of the rules posted that i had supposedly broke and would need to enter the store.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I was just fired this morning from my job i've had for the last year and am going to file for unemployment, however my employer spent the meeting we had trying to get me to say that i agreed that I should leave so that she wouldnt technically be firing me so Im worried they'll try to dispute it and would like to get my case ready just in case, but i feel like i could use a picture of the rules posted that i had supposedly broke and would need to enter the store.

If you were banned from the store then entering the store now may subject you to criminal trespass charges. Thus, I don’t recommend you do that. You might have someone else take that photo for you. Whether that photo may be used at the UI hearing is another matter. You’d need to check what the rules are for that.

 

[eerelations]

If you were banned from the store then entering the store now may subject you to criminal trespass charges. Thus, I don’t recommend you do that. You might have someone else take that photo for you. Whether that photo may be used at the UI hearing is another matter. You’d need to check what the rules are for that.

OP hasn't even filed for UI benefits yet, let alone had them denied. So he's not at the hearing stage.

OP, just file for UI benefits and see what happens. If your former employer disputes your claim and the UI people deny said claim and you appeal and you are scheduled for an in-person hearing, then you can worry about getting a photo of the rules.

But I agree with Taxing Matters - don't enter the store unless you want to expose yourself to criminal trespassing charges.

 

[cbg]

How would a photocopy of the rules prove whether you did or didn't break them?

HINT - it wouldn't.

 

[eerelations]

I don't think OP will even get to that stage. He will file for UI benefits and his employer might appeal, and might say that he quit because he broke a rule. And UI just might ignore that appeal because really, how many employees break a rule and then fall on their swords and quit?

But OP needs to file for UI benefits first, before he can even think about doing anything else.

 

[commentator]

This is just some obnoxious argumentative person wanting to flout the rule that says "No, you can't come in the store again!" So they have tried to think up a dandy excuse, where they'll HAVE to let him/her come back in, it's my right, you see.

No, pictures of the posted rules will not help one iota in the unemployment hearing, IF and WHEN there ever is an unemployment hearing. They're a contract U.I. employer, so he's going to be presenting a case for receiving benefits, IF he ever files, and IF he's monetarily eligible, and IF it ever gets to the appeals stage, along with not the employees of this particular store, but a person sent in to do the hearing from another part of the country. And don't worry, they'll have copies of the rules and copies of the warnings and documentation of when and why the OP left.

Yes, it's a tad more in the employee's favor if they don't say they quit. But it doesn't matter. If you were aware of the rules and you broke one, being fully aware of what it is, like if for example it's posted up on the wall somewhere you see it at work every day, if they can show this well enough, you likely won't be approved to draw anyway

 

[Taxing Matters]

OP hasn't even filed for UI benefits yet, let alone had them denied. So he's not at the hearing stage.

No, he’s not there yet. But it could go that way and it’s not a bad idea to be prepared with evidence that you might need for the hearing. A photo of the rules posted at his work place as close in time to his termination as possible may be helpful to prove that whatever rule he is alleged to have broken was not at least a rule that was posted. Getting it now may help avoid the problem where the employer changes the sign soon after to include the rule he supposedly broke to bolster its contest of the UI claim. Yes, I realize that such a move is dishonest and that many employers wouldn’t stoop that low, but there are some who would and the cynic in me says to prepare for the worst case — one in which the employer is indeed the dishonest sort.

 

[quincy]

No, he’s not there yet. But it could go that way and it’s not a bad idea to be prepared with evidence that you might need for the hearing. A photo of the rules posted at his work place as close in time to his termination as possible may be helpful to prove that whatever rule he is alleged to have broken was not at least a rule that was posted. Getting it now may help avoid the problem where the employer changes the sign soon after to include the rule he supposedly broke to bolster its contest of the UI claim. Yes, I realize that such a move is dishonest and that many employers wouldn’t stoop that low, but there are some who would and the cynic in me says to prepare for the worst case — one in which the employer is indeed the dishonest sort.

On the other hand, taking a picture of the rules also show they were posted where employees could see them. A violation of a rule that was clearly posted is harder to defend.

 

[Zigner]

No, he’s not there yet. But it could go that way and it’s not a bad idea to be prepared with evidence that you might need for the hearing. A photo of the rules posted at his work place as close in time to his termination as possible may be helpful to prove that whatever rule he is alleged to have broken was not at least a rule that was posted. Getting it now may help avoid the problem where the employer changes the sign soon after to include the rule he supposedly broke to bolster its contest of the UI claim. Yes, I realize that such a move is dishonest and that many employers wouldn’t stoop that low, but there are some who would and the cynic in me says to prepare for the worst case — one in which the employer is indeed the dishonest sort.

Not every rule needs to be posted. Heck, NO rules "need" to be posted (assuming they're otherwise communicated.) If the violation is egregious enough, it wouldn't have to be mentioned in the rules at all (ie: theft, assault, use of illegal drugs, etc.) Additionally, a listing of rules doesn't preclude the existence of additional rules.

 

[eerelations]

Just throwing out some questions/possibilities here:

How do we know that the only reason OP wants to go into the store is because he was fired/banned? That he's just being ornery?

How do we know that the posted rules include a rule that his former boss said he broke? What if his boss cited a rule that's not posted and then fired him for not complying with said unposted rule? So he wants a photo of the posted rules to show that he couldn't have known he was violating a rule since it wasn't posted?

How do we know that the rule his boss said he broke is one of those obvious unwritten rules? (An example of an obvious unwritten rule being something like "Thou shalt never be late for work.") What if the rule OP broke is not only unwritten but unobvious?

And what about this resign-or-be-fired thing? Sounds a bit sleazy on the part of OP's former employer...

I don't think we have nearly enough information from the OP to be jumping all over him like this.

 

[quincy]

... I don't think we have nearly enough information from the OP to be jumping all over him like this.

Who is jumping all over the OP??!

 

[eerelations]

Who is jumping all over the OP??!

Several people (three, I believe) have accused OP of wanting to go into the store for the sole reason that he's been banned, that he's not smart for wanting a pic of the rules that he's broken, and that he's broken some not-listed rule that's so obvious it doesn't need to be listed.

 

[quincy]

Several people (three, I believe) have accused OP of wanting to go into the store for the sole reason that he's been banned, that he's not smart for wanting a pic of the rules that he's broken, and that he's broken some not-listed rule that's so obvious it doesn't need to be listed.

I see posts questioning the need for a photo of the rules (although I suppose it is better to have more evidence than you need than not enough) but I see only one post that suggests OP might have an ulterior motive for returning to the workplace.

It would be nice to know what rule was supposedly violated.

 

[eerelations]

I see posts questioning the need for a photo of the rules (although I suppose it is better to have more evidence than you need than not enough) but I see only one post that suggests OP might have an ulterior motive for returning to the workplace.

It would be nice to know what rule was supposedly violated.

Also why OP feels the need to take a pic of the rules.

Also what the rules actually are (as opposed to what responders think they are).

 

[eerelations]

Plus this whole business about OP having to state he quit as opposed to being fired makes me a tiny bit suspicious about his employer. Just a bit.