The Rat Revisited

YOU LOSE BITCH!

That said, I'll explain to those of you who don't know my story of the rat. The rat was a guy I worked with at my old job. He was a fucking asshole who made my life miserable. In the end, his fucktoy lied and got me fired.

At first I cried, then I was angry, then I was resigned. I said fuck it and went down and filed my unemployment. First time in my life. They told me there would a phone call between them and me and my old boss to determine if I was eligible or not. Okay. So, they call me, they call the old boss, he's not available. I win.

I begin to collect my unemployment. A few weeks go by, and all of a sudden I have a letter stating that my former employer filed an appeal. What the fuck is that? So, I read through it all. That means that if they find for him, not only does he not have to pay me anymore, but it means I have to pay back what I was already paid. OH MY HELL!

I was a wreck. Big dogs always beat out the little dogs. My witnesses, my proof, that was all in the hands of the big dogs. With the exception of the receipt ( I was accused of stealing) which I had already provided for the job service people.

That said, the hearing was scheduled with a judge a week ago Friday.

I received the decision in the mail and I will be typing what that letter says.

FINDING OF FACT:

Having reviewed all of the evidence in the record, the administrative law judge finds: Claimant was employed as a full time cashier/night manager of the convenience store through March 14, 2005 when she was discharged. Employer accused claimant of selecting and consuming food without paying for it on March 4. Later in the hearing, employer said she had paid for it but not until after the consumption, but he told claimant and testified that there was no receipt in T's cash bag at all; not that it was a late payment after claimant's consumption.

G, night manager of the restaurant, initially made the allegation that she saw claimant with the food in the employee maintenance room and T, cashier, said there was not a copy of a receipt for payment of the food. G is still employed and T is no longer employed and neither participated in the hearing. The employee maintenance room is locked and claimant does not have a key to access the room. G is a good friend with R(at) who did not like claimant and had threatened claimant's job. Claimant had taken the issue to R, manager, before, but was ignored. R(at) currently holds the job from which claimant was fired.

Employer did not know the time of the consumption or purchase and did not review surveillance cameras but relied on T's representations. When an employee buys food from the deli, an employee discount is given, the purchaser signs the receipt and one copy goes to the cash drawer. Claimant's belief was that she could pay for the food when business was slow because only two employees worked at night. Claimant's March 4, 2005 receipt noted the invoice number, referenced the employee, the price, sales tax, total purchase amount, and method of payment. Claimant attempted multiple times to provide the receipt she has for the food purchase on March 4 but was fired without acceptance or review of the receipt. R, manager, told claimant at separation he no longer thought the incident was theft but it would be best if they parted ways. R also told claimant she was fired because of a complaint from the last night worked that she had not helped T, the cashier on duty. Claimant asked for a review of the transaction logs showing how much work she did in comparison to T but the logs were not produced.

Not only are all of the allegations based upon hearsay statements, the individuals who made those statements had personal interest at stake and are not considered reliable sources of information because of their bias and self interest. Furthermore, employer's testimony is fraught with inconsistencies as to whether or not the food was purchased, whether or not there was a receipt, and changing the reason for the separation both to claimant and at hearing. T's alleged complaint about claimant not helping is not credible, as employer did not run the transaction reports to prove or disprove the allegation. Thus, employer's allegations are wholly incredible and claimant's recollection of the events is the credible basis for this decision.

An employer may discharge an employee for any number of reasons or no reason at all, but if it fails to meet its burden of proof to establish job related misconduct as the reason for the separation, employer incurs potential liability for unemployment insurance benefits related to that separation. Claimant did not engage in misconduct when she consumed food and paid for it during her shift and there is no evidence she did not perform her share of the work. Benefits are allowed.
>end<

Now, as petty as posting this might seem, I finally feel vindicated. I feel like I was given justice. He fired me for bullshit reasons and someone else was able to call him on it and make him pay.

I will be sending this letter on to his boss to make sure he doesn't hide what he's done. Then I will be done with all of this. Forever. I can finally let it go. I can find peace with this particular thing and move past it.

Thanks for listening to me rant about it.