Working ConditionsThis section discusses those "working conditions" not covered in other sections, which are connected with the job or job site and which affect the worker. Show
A. GeneralTitle 22, Section 1256-23 (b), provides: . . . An individual who leaves work due to mere personal dislike, distaste, or minor inconvenience caused by working conditions leaves without good cause. If the working conditions are so unsatisfactory as to be intolerable to a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment and prior to leaving work the individual has taken steps to preserve the job . . . there is good cause for leaving the work. An individual who has good cause to leave work for intolerable working conditions is not required to seek an adjustment from the employer prior to leaving work if the employer is unable to remedy the working condition or has previously refused the individual's request for adjustment, or the individual knows that the employer has refused the requests of other employees for an adjustment of the same working condition. The term "working condition" is very general and can refer to anything from the manner of performing the work to the number of bosses. Therefore, it is necessary to first reduce the general term "working condition" to the specifics of the job to which the claimant objected. Once the true reason of the "working condition" is found, the interviewer must determine if a voluntary quit was the only alternative open to the claimant. The claimant's failure to attempt to preserve the employment relationship prior to quitting may negate any good cause reason for leaving. In an attempt to resolve conflict the employer may suggest either mediation or arbitration to the claimant before the separation actually develops. If this is the case, alternate dispute resolution is one of the "reasonable steps to preserve the job" available to the claimant; failure to attempt reconciliation through these methods may negate any good cause in leaving. Mediation may be defined as "turbocharged negotiation," an extension of the negotiating process. The mediator has no decision-making power, but functions as an intermediary between the parties. Mediation occurs in a conference setting and explores the parties' positions privately and in confidence; information shared by one side with the mediator cannot be revealed to the other side without the disclosing party's consent. Mediation takes the "emotional steam" out of a dispute and allows each side to tell its story without fear; it affords a "reality check" for both sides. Arbitration is a system by which the parties submit their dispute to a neutral third party for resolution; both sides are generally represented by attorneys. To invoke arbitration, the parties agree beforehand or at the time of the controversy that the dispute will be resolved through arbitration; the subject matter of arbitration may also be restricted through written agreement. Subject matter typically includes breach of employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, public policy violations, and various tort (civil wrong) actions; and back pay and reinstatement may be ordered by the arbitrator. It is more formal than mediation, generally requiring formal pleadings before an arbitration hearing is held. Binding arbitration is final upon all parties. B. Duties or Requirements of WorkTitle 22, Section 1256-23(c) provides: . . . An individual may leave work because the employer's work requirements violate the agreement of hire, impose duties beyond those of the employee's occupation, or reassign work to or from another employee or make changes in the distribution of workload among employees. The leaving of work is without good cause unless the employer's requirements cause undue hardship to or discriminate against the individual worker, or are unreasonable under the circumstances. It should be remembered, that some phases of working conditions are regulated by law or regulation. The Division of Industrial Welfare issues orders covering such things as ventilation, temperature, rest periods and meal times, drinking water and washing facilities, uniforms and equipment, and dressing and rest rooms. A claimant will have good cause for quitting whenever an employer has notice of substantial noncompliance with the law or appropriate regulation, providing the employer has been given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
C. Employer RulesA leaving of work because of objection to a company rule, which is generally known and enforced, will be without good cause unless the company rule is unreasonable or, although reasonable, the enforcement of the company rule creates undue hardship for the claimant. Where a rule is not generally enforced but the employer decides suddenly to enforce it with respect to one employee, that employee may have good cause for quitting on the grounds that the employer's action constitutes harassment. Whether or not the employee will have good cause under such circumstances will depend upon the nature of the rule which is enforced against him. It is the employer's right generally to establish such rules for his employees as, in the employer's opinion, are necessary for the proper conduct of his business. In most cases, a rule will be judged reasonable solely because the employer considered it necessary for the proper conduct of his business. The right of the employer to control his operations should be kept in mind and the fact that the claimant (or the interviewer) cannot readily see the need for an employer rule, does not mean that the rule is unreasonable. When the reasonableness of an employer rule is in doubt, the employer should be questioned as to why such a rule was needed and put into force. As an example, an employer may require a certain type of dress in a restaurant as a condition of employment. When investigated, the reason for this rule is that a certain "atmosphere" may thereby be established or in keeping with the preparation and service of food. This is sufficient reason to establish a rule as reasonable. Occasionally, however, a given employer rule may exceed the normal bounds of reasonableness. When a claimant alleges, or an interviewer has reason to believe, that a given employer rule is unreasonable, it should be tested against the criteria provided in Title 22, Section 1256-23(d):
In P-B-194, the claimant, a salesperson in a department store, had at the time of hire agreed to submit to a polygraph (Lie Detector) test. The test was to be given to any employee or all employees in the event the employer had reason to believe there were untruths on an application or wished to verify the honesty of employees in the event of shortages or thefts from the employer's business in the future. Shortages occurred in the claimants department. She and other salesclerks requested separate cash drawers; the employer refused. The polygraph tests became compulsory as a condition of continued employment. Although the claimant had agreed to submit to such a test a year earlier when she was hired, she refused to submit to the test stating she had not been accused and she felt she should not be required to prove her innocence. She voluntarily left the employment. In its decision the Board ruled as follows: Section 1963 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that there is a presumption that a person is innocent of crime or wrong. This is evidence which must be overcome by anyone alleging otherwise. To place upon a person the initial burden of proving his own innocence is unreasonable . . . . Therefore, our position is that a claimant who leaves his work rather than undergo a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment . . . (even though he may have agreed to such a test as a condition of employment) is not subject to disqualification under Section 1256 of the Code. Such a condition should have no bearing upon the claimant's eligibility for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Code. Here then is an example of an unreasonable employer rule. The employer left the claimant no option in the matter. The claimant either had to submit to the polygraph test or leave employment, otherwise the claimant would have been discharged. Once having established that a rule was unreasonable, it is immaterial that the claimant had agreed to such a rule at the time of hire. Even where the claimant would otherwise have good cause for quitting because of the unreasonable employer rule, he or she generally must attempt to remedy the situation prior to quitting in order to avoid a disqualification. However, there would be no requirement that the claimant attempt to adjust any situation where an attempt would be nothing more than an idle gesture. D. Method, Manner, Quality, and QuantityIt is unquestionably the employer's right to establish methods of performing work, and the quality and quantity standards for that work. A claimant who quits solely because of objection to the manner in which the employer exercised these prerogatives normally would be subject to disqualification. Additionally, good cause for quitting will not be established when a claimant quits because of a belief that he/she cannot meet the quality or quantity standards set by the employer. The employer is the judge of the suitability of the claimant's work. Title 22, Section 1256-23(e), provides: A claimant who leaves work due to an objection to the method or manner of work performance or to the quality or quantity of the work required or to materials used in the work leaves without good cause unless one or more of the following circumstances is present:
Where the claimant objects to the methods and quality of the work solely because of pride of workmanship, there will usually be no good cause for quitting. However, a reputation for pride of workmanship and integrity of workmanship is of financial value in some professions and for some artists and skilled craftsmen. For them to do shoddy work would result in definite impairment of their earning power. Good cause for quitting can exist under such circumstances. E. Co-workers and Management
F. TransferTitle 22, Section 1256-30 (g), provides:
"Wholly unrelated work" is any type of work which does not utilize any of the skills of the claimant, whether those skills were acquired through work with the employer or through prior experience or training. Generally, a transfer from one unskilled job to another cannot be considered a transfer to wholly unrelated work. In P-B-286, the claimant was employed for over four years as a welder, second class. As a result of a reduction in force, the claimant was offered work as a general helper, an unskilled classification. The claimant refused to accept the demotion and accepted the layoff. The Board held that the claimant quit with good cause because: We have . . . held that, on a transfer to another job, if the offered work is wholly unrelated to the work last performed by the employee and is also wholly unrelated to any work within the employee's prior training, experience, or qualifications, then the employee has good cause for refusing to accept the work. In the present case, while it is not established by the record that the offered work was beyond the claimant's prior training, experience, or qualifications, nevertheless it was an unskilled classification and unrelated to the skilled classification of the claimant's primary occupation . . . . Where a claimant's layoff or discharge occurs because the claimant will not accept a transfer to other work with the same employer, the claimant will be deemed to have voluntarily left his/her work and will be subject to disqualification unless good cause can be established for the refusal. In P-B-427, the claimant was hired when he was 25 years old. On his employment application, he indicated that he was willing to work anywhere in the United States, but the application did not reveal whether a one-time relocation (in order to be hired initially) was intended, or whether the claimant was agreeing to relocate from time to time as long as he was employed. By the time he reached age 43, he had a wife and two teenage children and a new set of obligations. His employer offered him employment as an operations manager (comparable to his present position), in the Cleveland, Ohio, store because they were preparing to close the store where he worked in Granada Hills. The claimant discussed the transfer with his wife and children, and the family decided they did not want to live in Ohio, although they were willing to relocate anywhere in California or even in the western states. The employer contended that, under the original agreement of hire, the claimant had a continuing obligation to transfer to other areas to preserve his employment. The claimant argued that willingness to relocate, based on an 18-year-old employment application should not bind him permanently and irrevocably to accept transfers regardless of his circumstances. In its decision holding the claimant had good cause for refusing the transfer, the Board stated: A transfer that requires relocating has a much greater impact than one that merely makes commuting more difficult. It affects not only the claimant but, as in the case at hand, an entire family, which would be uprooted and required to adjust to a new environment. The claimant was not unreasonable. He was willing to accept a transfer to any part of California, or even to another western state. But he and his family felt that it would be asking too much of them to move 2,500 miles to a very different environment. In our judgment these reasons were serious and compelling, not trivial or frivolous. The Board also commented that their decision did not mean that every refusal of a long distance transfer would constitute quitting with good cause. The factual circumstances of each case would have to be carefully considered and evaluated. G. EquipmentIn discussing eligibility principles to be considered when a claimant has left work because of a lack of equipment to do the work or as a result of the employer's defective equipment, Title 22, Section 1256-13, provides in part: (b) An employee who leaves the most recent work due to the lack of equipment necessary to do the work has voluntarily left with good cause if the following conditions are met:
(c) An employee who leaves the most recent work because the employer has furnished improper, inadequate, or defective equipment which causes an undue risk of injury or illness to the employee, or because the employee is subjected to reprimands for improper work due to such equipment, or because the employee's piece-rate remuneration is reduced due to reduced production caused by such equipment, voluntarily leaves with good cause if the employee prior to leaving took reasonable steps to complain to the employer concerning the equipment and the employer took no steps to remedy the situation. In P-B-298, the claimant, a truck driver, had complained to his supervisor several times because of mechanical difficulties he was having with the truck assigned to him. The emergency brake was disconnected, the foot brake was inadequate and, on the last day he worked, the battery was so low he had to crank the truck in order to start the motor. While he was cranking the motor, the truck slipped over the block he had placed under the rear wheel to hold it and backed into a warehouse building. The claimant returned the truck to the terminal and waited about two hours for his supervisor to return so that he could inform him of the occurrence. The supervisor did not return and the claimant left after telling other employees he was quitting. In holding the claimant eligible, the Board stated: . . . . [T]he defective condition of the emergency brake was such that operation of the truck was in fact unsafe. . . . Since . . . (the claimant) had on several occasions complained of the defect to his superior without result, we conclude that the claimant had taken all reasonable steps to remedy the situation prior to the time that he voluntarily left the employment . . . . (In) view of his past experience the claimant was warranted in assuming that nothing would be done were he to make further complaints as to the condition of the truck, and . . . consequently, he had good cause to terminate the employment . . . . This decision probably would have been reversed if the claimant had not called the employer's attention to the brake problem prior to quitting. It frequently happens that an employer would have no way of knowing that machinery was functioning in a manner which might be detrimental or harmful unless notified by the employee. Improper equipment can be just as hazardous as defective equipment. A hypothetical example of a case in which a claimant might quit because of lack of proper equipment could be that of a service station attendant who was required to change tires on heavy trucks using an ordinary car jack. Since this equipment is not designed to lift heavy trucks, there would be danger of it allowing the truck to fall and injure the person who was working on it. Provided that the claimant had previously complained about the lack of proper equipment to the employer and nothing had been done about it, the claimant would be justified in quitting rather than risking his or her own safety working under such hazardous conditions. Occasionally claimants will quit because of inadequate equipment even though the use of the equipment entailed no hazards. In such cases, the claimants usually object to the inconvenience or extra work connected with the use of the inadequate equipment. In most cases, such quits will be without good cause. However, if a worker is continually subjected to reprimands and criticisms for improper work which actually is due to inadequate or defective equipment, and the employer refuses to replace or repair the equipment, the worker will generally have good cause to quit. In some occupations and industries, it is customary for the worker to furnish his or her own tools or equipment. In such cases, the employer's requirement that the claimant furnish such equipment, as is necessary to perform the job, would be a condition of hire. Periodically a claimant will quit because he or she is unable or unwilling to replace equipment which has worn out or has been stolen or damaged. In these cases, good cause for quitting will be determined by how compelling the claimant's reason is for not replacing the equipment. H. Disciplinary ActionTitle 22, Section 1256-7(b), provides: . . . The employer has protectable interests and the right to take reasonable corrective disciplinary action against employee infractions of employer-promulgated reasonable rules, or reasonable employer expectations which relate to standards of behavior, performance, and care which are:
Title 22, Section 1256-7(c), provides: Disciplinary Action by Employer. Employer discipline commonly takes the form of reprimand, criticism, changes in working hours, reduction in wages, reassignment or transfer, restitution for employee-caused losses due to culpable negligence or willful dishonesty, or threats of firing. Title 22, Section 1256-7(d), provides: Unreasonable Employer Disciplinary Action as Good Cause for Leaving Work. If the employee leaves work in response to corrective disciplinary action by the employer, the leaving is with good cause if the employee prior to leaving did everything that could reasonably be expected of a person genuinely desirous of preserving the employment relationship, and the employer's disciplinary action is unreasonable because any of the following conditions exists:
In P-B-229, the claimant, because of an automobile breakdown, was late in returning from lunch which resulted in a reprimand by his supervisor. The claimant objected to the attitude of his supervisor in the discussion which ensued whereupon he quit without informing his supervisor that he had a broken spring on his automobile. The Board ruled that the claimant quit without good cause stating: . . . . [T]here is nothing in the record to indicate that the substance of this reprimand or the manner in which it was given to the claimant was unreasonable. Neither can we find that the course of conduct on the part of the supervisor amounted to such hostility or harassment as to furnish the claimant with good cause for quitting. Since the claimant who leaves work because of the employer's disciplinary action is the moving party to the separation, he or she is eligible only if a real and compelling cause for the action can be established. If it is found that the substance of the disciplinary actions and the manner in which it was given were reasonable, good cause for leaving does not exist. In P-B-300, the claimant did establish real and compelling cause for her action. The claimant worked as a bookkeeper for a small insurance firm. She quit that employment because the employer repeatedly criticized her in a sarcastic manner in front of customers; some of the criticism was caused by errors made by the claimant in her work, but some criticism concerned matters not attributable to the claimant and some concerned matters wholly unrelated to the claimant's work. Occasionally, the claimant left the employer's office in tears. Three witnesses testified on behalf of the claimant. In finding the claimant eligible for benefits, the Board stated: We have held in prior decisions that a leaving of work impelled by mere dislike for a supervisor, where the facts fail to indicate a course of conduct on the part of the supervisor amounting to abuse, hostility or unreasonable discrimination, does not constitute good cause . . . . However, the record established that the conduct of the claimant's employer in the instant case was abusive and hostile, moreover, this conduct was repeated on numerous occasions. Under the circumstances this constituted a compelling reason for the claimant to leave her employment . . . . Thus, if undue embarrassment, or harassment is caused by continual criticism, in contrast to a single instance of criticism, good cause for leaving does exist. However, if the employer's criticism was an isolated incident rather than a continuing course of conduct the Board would probably have ruled that the claimant quit without good cause. How do you prove a toxic work environment?What are the signs of a toxic workplace?. There are no boundaries around work. ... . People don't trust each other. ... . There's no room to make mistakes. ... . People treat each other with contempt. ... . The interpersonal relationships aren't healthy. ... . There is no support for employee growth. ... . People frequently feel gaslighted.. Which three examples are most likely to contribute to a hostile work environment?Here are some possible examples of hostile work environment:. Sexual / racial harassment. These are two things that always create a hostile environment for employees. ... . Discrimination of any kind. ... . Consistent aggressiveness. ... . Ridiculing or victimization. ... . Lots of complaints and threats for punishment. ... . That feeling you get.. What has to occur for a work environment to be considered hostile?Harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct, discrimination, violence victimization and many other kinds of offensive behavior is considered a hostile work environment. Happening consistently or purposefully, all of these things will create a hostile work environment.
How do I explain why I left a toxic work environment?Be positive.. Instead of saying: My [company] has a toxic work culture. ... . You could say: It's really important for me to be around people who love their job and believe in the mission of the company. ... . Instead of saying: My manager is always standing over my shoulder micromanaging every little assignment.. |