Is a Worker Exploited if She Quits Because the Boss Demands She
Is a Worker Exploited if She Quits Because the Boss Demands She Go to Training Without Pay?
Janet Demar worked at a day care center for $12.75 an hour for 40 hours. The recession resulted in fewer kids at the center, so the employer reduced Janet╒s pay to $10.50 for 30 hours and cut her vacation days from 5 to 2. Janet wasn╒t happy but stayed at work. Eight weeks later the employer asked if Janet would go back to 40 hours. Janet asked if her pay would go back to $12.75. The employer didn╒t respond.
A couple of days later, Janet╒s truck broke down and she asked for a day off to take it to a repair shop and another day off to pick it up. The employer denied the request. Later the employer told Janet she had to go to an evening training, mandated by the State, so the Center could take state kids. The employer would not pay Janet to go.
Janet and employer exchanged testy text messages, with Janet demanding to be paid, and the employer refusing. A stalemate ensued. Employer told Janet to come to a meeting to discuss the situation which it characterized as ╥show down╙ and the ╥end of discussion.╙ Janet refused to go to the meeting without a third party present. Employer refused to allow a third party. Janet quit.
Janet╒s request for unemployment benefits was denied by the Employment Security Board, because it decided Janet╒s decision not to attend the meeting without a third party was unreasonable, and so her quit was voluntary, and without good cause attributable to the employer. Janet appealed.
Prior Supreme Court decisions held that an employee must make some effort to resolve poor working conditions prior to quitting, or prove such efforts would be futile. The focus of resolving that issue is the conduct of the employer. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Employment Board. Four justices decided that the reason Janet quit was the dispute over whether or not she'd be paid for the training, and it was unreasonable to request a third party be present at a meeting called to resolve the dispute. These justices decided the earlier pay cut, or other issues, had nothing to do with the dispute because she worked for eight weeks before quitting. The recession was not the fault of the employer.
Justice Denise Johnson dissented. In her opinion a break down in an employment relationship, like any other relationship is rarely defined by a single event. If Janet had quit because of the pay reduction, without question, she would have been entitled to benefits. Further, the testy exchange of text messages showed that the meeting concerning being paid for the training session was going to be futile. The employer had stated it was a 'show down' and was the 'end of discussion.' The legal requirement to have such a meeting is to give both sides a chance to resolve a dispute' which clearly wasn't going to happen. The unemployment compensation law, she wrote, has a remedial purpose to protect workers from unfair and exploitive working conditions. Janet was entitled to that protection.
This decision for the employer supports the Employment Security Board. Perhaps the majority of justices determined they must either uphold the Board in close cases, or else take over the Board╒s authority to make decisions. It gives little guidance to the Board. Justice Johnson, on the other hand, would require the Board to be more sensitive to the law╒s requirement that employers not exploit workers. Demar v. Department of Labor 2010 VT 69.
