Whether or not an employee was discharged for a reason determines whether they can qualify for unemployment benefits. There is a general rule: employees who are discharged for “misconduct associated with the work” may be disqualified from benefits. But what does “misconduct” actually mean? The meaning varies from state to state, depending upon case law, so a lot depends on how employers and employees understand what’s at issue here.
Defining Misconduct: More Than Poor Performance
For instance, an employee who fails frequently at work because he or she lacks necessary skills or knowledge isn’t necessarily excluded from gaining unemployment benefits. That employee never had the intention to intentionally harm the company nor was negligent in the first place. Instead, misbehaving refers to an employee with the intent to be negligent of his or her responsibilities or breach of policy by the company.
The Case-by-Case Nature of Misconduct
There is no blanket answer to whether the action by an employee is considered misconduct. Each case must depend on the specific facts and circumstances. State laws and decisions of courts guide the matter, but each situation presents something different.
For example, a supervisor informs a worker that he or she is unsatisfactory because he or she spends too much time socializing with coworkers and not enough time doing his or her work. Despite this warning, the employee continues with excessive conversation, then neglects responsibility. In that case, the discharge would probably be classified as one based on misconduct, given that the employee was appropriately warned of their inappropriate behavior but still chose to ignore such. It shows a form of intent, and intent is a necessary component in determining misconduct.
The Importance of Warnings and Documentation
This is one of the best ways in which misconduct to an employee can be proven to the employer, by giving clear warnings and documenting all sorts of performance issues. Before letting them go, employees need an opportunity to correct their behavior, mainly on cases that are not grossly devious in nature.
In the case above, the warning issued by the supervisor acted as notice to the employee of which behavior was unacceptable. Continued disregard for such a directive demonstrates intentional misconduct on the part of the employee. If the employee genuinely tried to improve but failed-to communicate or work effectively, say-for instance-it could well be argued that she was terminated because of poor performance rather than for misconduct.
Protecting Employee Rights
For workers, knowing your rights might be when you suspect that your discharge was not based on misconduct and, in fact had to do with poor performance. In such cases, showing efforts to improve and a lack of intentional wrongdoing can help strengthen an appeal that one was wrongfully denied.
Conclusion
Whether or not a termination was for cause or poor performance is not clearly defined. The difference between the two would be where the intent of the employee lies: whether their actions were intentional and damaging to the employer. Poor performance alone is not a ground for disqualification from unemployment; however, where there was deliberate misconduct, especially in a situation where warnings had been issued, there may be grounds for disqualification. Knowing the intricacies of these cases and how critically documentation matters will always assist the employer/employee in usually this complicated process.
