|
Unemployment Insurance
Web Library Topic -
Working Conditions
Unsatisfactory or
Hazardous Working Conditions
Substantial Change in
Working Conditions
Reduction in Pay Rate
Dissatisfaction with Standard Working
Conditions
Unsatisfactory or
Hazardous Working Conditions
Statute
§ 8‑73‑108(4)(c), C.R.S.
2005
(4) An individual separated from a job shall be given a
full award of benefits if any of the following reasons and pertinent
conditions related thereto are determined by the division to have
existed. The determination of whether or not the separation from
employment shall result in a full award of benefits shall be the
responsibility of the division. The following reasons shall be
considered, along with any other factors that may be pertinent to such
determination:
(c) Unsatisfactory or hazardous working conditions when
so determined by the division. In determining whether or not working
conditions are unsatisfactory for an individual, the degree of risk
involved to his health, safety, and morals, his physical fitness and
prior training, his experience and prior earnings, the distance of the
work from his residence, and the working conditions of workers engaged
in the same or similar work for the same and other employers in the
locality shall be considered. For the purpose of this paragraph (c),
“hazardous working conditions” means such conditions, as are determined
by the division to exist, that could result in a danger to the physical
or mental well-being of the worker. In any such determination the
division shall consider, but shall not be limited to a consideration of,
the following: The safety measures used or the lack thereof and the
condition of equipment or lack of proper equipment. No work shall be
considered hazardous if the working conditions surrounding a worker's
employment are the same or substantially the same as the working
conditions generally prevailing among workers performing the same or
similar work for other employers engaged in the same or similar type of
activity.
Cases
Gatewood v. Russell, 29 Colo. App. 11, 478
P.2d 679 (1970)
"[T]he reason for voluntary termination of
employment must be for objective rather than personal reasons."
In this case, although the claimant asserted he quit because of
harassment, those circumstances were found to be a personality
conflict with his supervisor. Therefore, because the claimant
quit for subjective personal reasons, the claimant was disqualified
from the receipt of unemployment benefits.
Musgrave
v. Eben Ezer Lutheran Institute, 731 P.2d 142 (Colo. App. 1986)
A claimant is not required to notify the employer of
his or her dissatisfaction with the working conditions in order to
be entitled to an award of unemployment benefits.
Hellen v.
Industrial Commission, 738 P.2d 64 (Colo. App. 1987)
There is no requirement that the claimant must show
he or she was singled out for unsatisfactory treatment by a
supervisor. Rather, "the only relevant consideration is
whether the nature of such supervision was 'reasonably to be
expected,'" and thus the claimant is entitled to an award even if
the unreasonable supervision was applied to all employees.
Rodco
Systems, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 981 P.2d 699
(Colo. App. 1999)
Whether a claimant's working conditions were
"unsatisfactory or hazardous" for the claimant is to be determined
using an objective standard. The issue is whether a reasonable
person in the claimant's position would have found the working
conditions so detrimental to his or her physical or mental
well-being that resignation was warranted. Here, the court
upheld an award to a claimant who resigned after she learned the
employer's president was altering insurance certificates and falsely
representing the employer's insurance coverage to a prospective
client.
Campbell v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office,
97 P.3d 204 (Colo. App. 2003)
A claimant's failure to provide evidence of the
working conditions for workers performing the same or similar work
for the same or other employers does not bar an award for
unsatisfactory working conditions if sufficient evidence was shown
to satisfy the statute. However, if such evidence is
presented, it must be considered along with the other relevant
factors in the statute.
Substantial Change in
Working Conditions
Statute
§ 8‑73‑108(4)(d), C.R.S.
2005
(4) An individual separated from a job shall be given a
full award of benefits if any of the following reasons and pertinent
conditions related thereto are determined by the division to have
existed. The determination of whether or not the separation from
employment shall result in a full award of benefits shall be the
responsibility of the division. The following reasons shall be
considered, along with any other factors that may be pertinent to such
determination:
(d) A substantial change in the worker's working conditions, said
change in working conditions being substantially less favorable to the
worker; but requiring a worker to work a different shift shall not be
considered a substantial change in working conditions unless such
requirement would be a violation of seniority rights which entitle the
worker to shift preferential, but in any such case the burden of proving
such seniority rights shall rest upon the worker. No change in working
conditions shall be considered substantial if it is determined by the
division that the conditions prevailing after the change are those
generally prevailing for other workers performing the same or similar
work.
Cases
Gray Moving &
Storage, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 38 Colo. App. 419, 560 P.2d
482 (1976)
"Overt acts or conduct by the employer directed at one employee .
. . is sufficient to support a full award. It is not required that
working conditions become impossible, only that there be a
substantial change." Here, a supervisor's derogatory treatment
and ostracism of the claimant constituted a substantial and less
favorable change in working conditions for the claimant.
Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 657 P.2d 457 (Colo. App. 1982)
A disqualification for quitting due to dissatisfaction with
standard working conditions is improper where a claimant quit
because of a job change he interpreted as a demotion. Further,
the claimant's loss of supervisory or managerial duties was a
substantial change in working conditions.
Warburton v. Industrial Commission, 678 P.2d 1076 (Colo. App. 1984)
A claimant who quit after being told her supervisory duties would
be shared with another employee, and whose supervisory duties would
be decreased because of a staff reduction was entitled to
unemployment benefits because of a substantial change in working
conditions.
Musgrave v. Eben Ezer
Lutheran Institute, 731 P.2d 142 (Colo. App. 1986)
If a claimant acquiesces to a substantial change in working
conditions, those conditions become the claimant's standard working
conditions, and may disqualify the claimant from receiving
unemployment benefits if he or she subsequently quits because of
dissatisfaction with the new standard working conditions.
However, a claimant's failure to notify the employer of his or her
dissatisfaction with the working conditions does not bar an award of
benefits.
Larsen-Oldaker v. Industrial Commission, 735 P.2d 209 (Colo. App.
1987)
When the claimant quits as the result of a substantial change in
working conditions, such as after being demoted, if the reason for
the change is because of disqualifying conduct on the part of the
claimant, then the claimant shall be disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits.
Nimmo v. Town of Monument, 736 P.2d 435 (Colo. App. 1987)
A claimant was in a probationary period as an assistant
maintenance supervisor, but the position was eliminated and the
claimant was given a position as a permanent maintenance worker at
the same pay grade. The court held that even though the
claimant did not quit until six months after the change in working
conditions, he did not acquiesce to the change as he had filed a
grievance and a lawsuit during that time.
Wargon v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 787 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1990)
Determination of whether any change in the working
conditions was substantially less favorable, or there was "good
cause" for refusing the transfer, must be made using an objective
standard, and is not based on the claimant’s subjective view or
preferences.
Arias v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 850 P.2d 161 (Colo. App.
1993)
If the claimant's separation from employment was caused by a
substantial change in working conditions, or unsatisfactory working
conditions, the claimant is entitled to an award only if the
conditions were less favorable to the claimant than conditions
prevailing among similar workers in that locality, either by the
same or similar employers.
Chris the Crazy Trader, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81
P.3d 1148 (Colo. App. 2003)
The Division and the hearing officer do not have a duty to seek
or obtain evidence concerning working conditions for employees doing
similar work for other employers in the locality. Rather, it
is the responsibility of the parties to present their own evidence.
Reduction in Pay Rate
Statute
§ 8‑73‑108(4)(e), C.R.S.
2005
(4) An individual separated from a job shall be given a
full award of benefits if any of the following reasons and pertinent
conditions related thereto are determined by the division to have
existed. The determination of whether or not the separation from
employment shall result in a full award of benefits shall be the
responsibility of the division. The following reasons shall be
considered, along with any other factors that may be pertinent to such
determination:
(e) Unreasonable reduction in the worker's rate of pay as determined
by the division. In determining whether or not there has been an
unreasonable reduction in the worker's rate of pay, the division shall
consider, but shall not be limited to a consideration of, whether or not
the reduction in pay was applied by the employer to all workers in the
same or similar class or merely to this individual, the general economic
conditions prevailing in the state, the financial condition of the
employer involved, and whether or not the reduction in wage was agreed
to by other workers employed in the same or similar work. The worker's
loss of a shift differential or overtime pay shall not be considered an
unreasonable reduction in the worker's rate of pay under this paragraph
(e), unless such shift differential or overtime pay was guaranteed by
the employer.
Case
Rulon v. Industrial
Commission, 728 P.2d 739 (Colo. App. 1986)
A claimant's pay reduction was unreasonable when the reduction
was due to deficiencies in the claimant's performance, but she was
not informed that she was failing to meet expectations and given an
opportunity to improve.
Dissatisfaction with
Standard Working Conditions
Statute
§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(I), C.R.S.
2005
(5)(e) Subject to the maximum reduction consistent with federal law,
and insofar as consistent with interstate agreements, if a separation
from employment occurs for any of the following reasons, the employer
from whom such separation occurred shall not be charged for benefits
which are attributable to such employment and, because any payment of
benefits which are attributable to such employment out of the fund as
defined in section 8-70-103 (13) shall be deemed to have an adverse
effect on such employer's account in such fund, no payment of such
benefits shall be made from such fund:
(I) Quitting employment because of dissatisfaction with prevailing
rates of pay in that industry, standard hours of work, standard working
conditions, or working conditions which generally prevail for other
workers performing the same or similar work, regularly assigned duties,
or opportunities for advancement.
Cases
Gatewood v. Russell, 29 Colo. App. 11, 478
P.2d 679 (1970)
"[T]he reason for voluntary termination of
employment must be for objective rather than personal reasons."
In this case, although the claimant asserted he quit because of
harassment, those circumstances were found to be a personality
conflict with his supervisor. Therefore, because the claimant
quit for subjective personal reasons, the claimant was disqualified
from the receipt of unemployment benefits.
Rotenberg v. Industrial Commission, 42 Colo. App. 161, 590 P.2d 521
(1979)
A claimant who quit because of cigarette smoke in
the work environment did not show the working conditions were
unsatisfactory or hazardous apart from his subjective assertions of
discomfort, and was properly disqualified.
Jennings v. Industrial Commission, 682 P.2d 518 (Colo. App. 1984)
A claimant who continued working for seven months after the
workload increased for both caseworkers, and accepted a raise during
that time, acquiesced to the change in working conditions, which
then became her standard working conditions.
Musgrave v. Eben Ezer
Lutheran Institute, 731 P.2d 142 (Colo. App. 1986)
If a claimant acquiesces to a substantial change in working
conditions, those conditions become the claimant's standard working
conditions, and may disqualify the claimant from receiving
unemployment benefits if he or she subsequently quits because of
dissatisfaction with the new standard working conditions.
Muhlenkamp v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 802 P.2d 1127 (Colo. App. 1990)
There is no substantial change in working conditions where the
claimant knew from outset that his normal duties as to each of two
components of his job would be compensated differently.
Wargon v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 787 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1990)
Determination of whether any change in the working
conditions was substantially less favorable, or there was "good
cause" for refusing the transfer, must be made using an objective
standard, and is not based on the claimant’s subjective view or
preferences.
Rodco
Systems, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 981 P.2d 699
(Colo. App. 1999)
Whether a claimant's working conditions were
"unsatisfactory or hazardous" for the claimant is to be determined
using an objective standard. The issue is whether a reasonable
person in the claimant's position would have found the working
conditions so detrimental to his or her physical or mental
well-being that resignation was warranted.
Back to Top |
Library Index | ICAO
Home Page |
CDLE
Home Page
|
