Oklahoma UI Law Change Helpful to Temporary Staffing Companies
Oklahoma Senate Bill 5 was signed into law on April 22, 2013. It
amends the unemployment insurance (UI) laws so that an employee of a temporary help
firm may be denied UI benefits if he or she: 1) does
not contact the firm for reassignment upon completion of an assignment; 2) refuses
a suitable job assignment without good cause; 3) communicates his or her decision
to stop seeking assignments for any period of time; 4) becomes unavailable to accept
a suitable job assignment without good cause; or, 5) accepts employment with a client
of the temporary staffing firm.
The temporary staffing company is required to provide
the worker with a document written in clear, concise language informing him or her
of the statutory provisions and that benefits may be denied for failure to comply
with the law requirements to contact them for reassignment. The
temporary help firm must also establish a way for temporary workers to communicate
to them that their assignment has ended and of their availability for a new assignment.
“Good cause” is defined as a reason that is significant and would
compel an average, reasonable worker, who would otherwise want a suitable assignment
with a client of a temporary help firm, to fail to contact the temporary help firm,
to refuse an offered assignment, or to be unavailable for assignment.
“Suitable job assignment” is defined as work, either full-time
or part-time for one or more days or portions thereof, that is in keeping with the
education, training, experience, and ability of the individual to perform.
We have contacted the Oklahoma UI agency for any additional details
on how they will administer the law amendment, and will keep our clients apprised.
This law change goes into effect July 1, 2013.
This weblog is sponsored by TALX.
Recommended For You
A violation of your organization’s drug-free policies can seem like an open and shut case, but is it? Monthly Video […]
A picture is worth a thousand words, but what if it’s a telephone hearing? Monthly Video Series: 5 of 12 […]
Case Analysis: Claimant was absent from the work area and found “resting” in locker room Background A company discharged its employee […]
Case Analysis: Claimant did not report her absences in order to have them covered by FMLA Background A company discharged […]