No. 27919 (Amendment): R994-307-101. Relief of Charges to Contributing Employers

DAR File No.: 27919
Filed: 05/16/2005, 02:25
Received by: NL

 

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The reason for the change is to make the rule for part-time concurrent contributing employers the same as reimbursable employers.

 

Summary of the rule or change:

In October 2004, the Department filed changes to the "part-time concurrent reimbursable" rule (Section R994-401-302) to clarify when a part-time reimbursable employer will be relieved of liability. This current amendment is to make the rule the same for part-time concurrent contributory employers. Basically, if a claimant works for two or more employer and is separated from one of those employers, the other employers who still employ the claimant should not be liable for benefit costs. The employment no longer needs to be concurrent provided it is in the benefit year and the claimant worked for the employer in the week before filing the claim.

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Section 35A-1-104, and Subsections 35A-1-104(4) and 35A-4-502(1)(b)

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This is a federally-funded program and there will be no cost or savings to the state budget. The state is not a contributory employer and is unaffected by this amendment.

 

local governments:

This is a federally-funded state-run program and there will be no cost or savings to any local governmental entity. Even though local governments pay unemployment benefits, they are reimbursable and thus not affected by this rule.

 

other persons:

There will be no cost or savings to other persons. Employers not contributing to unemployment have always been relieved of costs; this amendment just clarifies when the contributory employer can be relieved of benefit costs.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

This amendment is not a big change from how relief is currently determined so it is not believed any claimants or employers will be affected by this change. There are no costs for complying with this rule change.

 

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

There will be no fiscal impact on business as a result of this change. Businesses are already relieved of charges for part-time concurrent employees, this proposed amendment will include a few part-time employers in the definition by dropping the "concurrent" requirement. Tani Downing, Executive Director

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Workforce Services
Workforce Information and Payment Services
140 E 300 S
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-2333

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Suzan Pixton at the above address, by phone at 801-526-9645, by FAX at 801-526-9211, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

07/01/2005

 

This rule may become effective on:

07/02/2005

 

Authorized by:

Tani Downing, Executive Director

 

 

RULE TEXT

R994. Workforce Services, Workforce Information and Payment Services.

R994-307. Social Costs -- Relief of Charges.

R994-307-101. Relief of Charges to Contributing Employers.

(1) Under the following circumstances a written request is required for relief of charges:

(a) Separation Issues.

(i) Relief may be granted based only on the circumstance which caused the claim to be filed or a separation which occurred prior to the initial filing of the claim. If there is more than one [reason for ]separation from the same employer, charges or relief of charges will be based on the reason for the last separation occurring prior to the effective date of the claim. Separations occurring after the initial filing of a claim do not result in relief of charges on that claim, but may be the basis for relief of charges on a subsequent claim.

(A) The claimant voluntarily left work for that employer due to circumstances which would have resulted in a denial of benefits under Subsection 35A-4-405(1) of the Act.

(B) The separation from that employer would have resulted in an allowance of benefits made under the provisions of "equity and good conscience" under circumstances not caused or aggravated by the employer. For example: If the claimant quit because of a personal circumstance which was not the result of this employment the employer would be relieved of charges. However, if the quit was precipitated by a reduction in the claimant's hours of work, even though the change in working conditions was necessitated by economic conditions, the employer would NOT be relieved of charges.

(C) The claimant quit that employer for health reasons which were beyond reasonable control of the employer. Although the job may have caused or aggravated the health problems, the employer is eligible for relief if it was in compliance with industry safety standards.

(D) The claimant quit work for that employer not because of adverse working conditions, but solely due to a personal decision to accept work with another employer.

(E) The claimant quit work from that employer for personally compelling circumstances not within the employer's power to control or prevent.

(F) The claimant quit new work from that employer after a short trial period, and through no fault of the employer the new work was unsuitable as defined in Subsections 35-4-405(3)(c), (d), and (e).

(G) The claimant was discharged from that employer for circumstances which would have resulted in a denial of benefits under Section 35A-4-405(2) of the Act.

(H) The claimant was discharged for nonperformance due to medical reasons. The employer is eligible for relief:

(I) only if the employer complied with industry health and safety standards, and

(II) the non-performance was due to a chronic medical condition, and

(III) the medical circumstances are expected to continue. The medical problems may be attributed to the worker or to a dependent. A series of unrelated absences attributed to medical problems do not qualify as chronic without medical verification that the conditions will probably continue to cause absences.

(I) The claimant continued to work for an acquiring employer when a portion of the business assets was sold or transferred to another business entity. For the purpose of this rule, employees are not considered assets and there must be an actual sale or transfer of business assets. Because the selling employer lost control of the employees to the acquiring employer, the selling employer may be eligible for relief of charges. Such relief may be sought by a timely written request following the claimant's subsequent claim for benefits. "Continued to work for the acquiring employer" means the claimant began work as soon as work was available [with]for the acquiring employer.

(b) Non-Separation Issues.

(i) When the claimant worked for two or more employers during the base period and is separated from one or more of these employers, but continues in regular part-time work for one of those employers, the nonseparating, part-time employer will not be liable for benefit costs provided;

(A) the claimant earned wages from a nonseparating employer within seven days prior to the date when the claim was filed,

(B) the claimant is not working on an "on call" basis,

(C) the number of hours of work has not been reduced, and

(D) the nonseparating employer makes a request that it not be held liable for benefit costs within ten days of the first notification of the employer's potential liability.[The claimant's customary hours of work with the concurrent employer, even though not necessarily constant have not been reduced either during the base period or prior to the filing of the claim below the least number of hours worked during the base period. For this circumstance to exist, the claimant must have worked for two or more employers during the base period of his claim, and when separated from one of the employers, he continues to work less than full-time for the other employer. Only the part-time employer can be relieved of benefit costs under the provisions of this section.]

(ii) The employer was previously charged for the same wages which are being used a second time to establish a new claim. For example, as the result of a change in the method of computing the base period, or overlapping base periods due to the effective date of the claim.

(iii) The claimant did not work for the employer during the base period.

(iv) The Department incorrectly used wages which were or should have been correctly reported by the employer in determining the claimant's weekly benefit amount or maximum benefit amount.

(c) The Department may, on its own motion, grant relief of charges without a written request if in the Department representative's discretion there is sufficient information in the record to justify relief.

(2) Under the following circumstances a written request is NOT required for relief of charges:

(a) All employers shall be relieved of benefit costs:

(i) resulting from the state's share of extended benefit payments;

(ii) which, during the same fiscal year, have been designated by the Department as benefit overpayments;

(iii) resulting from combined wage claims that are charged to Utah employers, which are insufficient when separately considered for a monetary claim under Utah law but have been transferred to a paying state;

(iv) resulting from payments made after December 31, 1985 to claimants who have been given [commission]Department approval to attend school. Relief is granted only for those benefit costs during the period of [commission]Department approval.

(b) An employer shall be relieved of benefit costs if the employer has terminated coverage.

 

KEY: unemployment compensation, rates

[April 1, 2002]2005

Notice of Continuation June 11, 2003

35A-4-303