Saturday, February 10, 2007
105th District Court, John Hubert, Alfred Isassi & blatant Nondisclosure of material facts (witness) Mary Cano
fraud, waste, or program abuse in any of the following programs:
| Alien Certification | Senior Comm. Services |
| Apprenticeship | Skills Development |
| Career Schools & Colleges | TANF/Choices |
| Child Care | Trade Adjustment |
| Employment Services | Unemployment Insurance |
| Food Stamp E&T | Veterans Services |
| Labor Law | Wagner-Peyser |
| Project RIO | Workforce Investment Act |
The Texas Workforce Commission is authorized by the Texas Labor Code to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and program abuse involving these programs. The Hotline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An investigator is normally on duty to take calls Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time. To limit fear of reprisal, the Hotline permits reporting of matters anonymously, if desired. Information that is submitted on the Hotline must be as specific as possible.
Reportable violations include, but are not limited to, the following examples:
- Obtaining unemployment insurance benefits by misrepresentation
- Obtaining child care benefits by misrepresentation
- Improper tax avoidance by nondisclosure or misrepresentation of facts
- Authorizing an improper claim for others
- Authorizing ineligible participation in TWC programs
- Authorizing payments to ineligible claimants/clients
- Accessing agency information (e.g., wage records) for non-business reasons.
- Conflict of interest issues
- Extorting money or accepting favors from contractors, clients, or vendors
- Failing to follow applicable rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and laws
- Improperly disclosing information
- Misusing State-owned property (computers, equipment, telephones, etc.)
- Nondisclosure of material facts
- Overstating travel expense reimbursement claims
- Receiving kickbacks from contractors, clients, or vendors
- Using State supplies for personal use
- Using State telephone lines for personal calls to avoid long distance charges
- Using unauthorized computer programs on State-owned computers
- Installation of State-owned computer software on home computers
- Violating contract or grant procedures
Comments:
<< Home
TPU 105.00 CONTRACT OBLIGATION.
INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT'S CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS HAVE AN EFFECT ON DETERMINING HIS
UNEMPLOYMENT STATUS.
Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782. Substitute teachers may have reasonable
assurance of continued employment within the meaning of
Section 3(f) (now codified as Section 207.041) of the Act. In determining
whether such reasonable assurance exists with regard to
substitute teachers, the following criteria should be utilized:
The school district must furnish to the Commission
written statements which provide facts that the substitute
teacher has been asked to continue in the
same capacity for the following academic year. Simply
placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following
year does not establish reasonable assurance.
It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship
to resume at the beginning of the following
year. The assurance must also be based on past experience
with regard to the number of substitutes
needed in the past.
Appeal No. 1876-CPUS-78. Prior to filing her initial claim, the
claimant had last worked as a school crossing guard, employed by
the City of Corpus Christi. She was laid off due to lack of work
caused by the closing of the schools at the end of the spring semester
and had a reasonable assurance that she would be reemployed
by the City in the same capacity during the coming fall semester.
HELD: Since the claimant was an employee of the City of
Corpus Christi and not of any public school district or any other
educational institution, Section 207.041 of the Act was not applicable
to her.
INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT'S CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS HAVE AN EFFECT ON DETERMINING HIS
UNEMPLOYMENT STATUS.
Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782. Substitute teachers may have reasonable
assurance of continued employment within the meaning of
Section 3(f) (now codified as Section 207.041) of the Act. In determining
whether such reasonable assurance exists with regard to
substitute teachers, the following criteria should be utilized:
The school district must furnish to the Commission
written statements which provide facts that the substitute
teacher has been asked to continue in the
same capacity for the following academic year. Simply
placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following
year does not establish reasonable assurance.
It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship
to resume at the beginning of the following
year. The assurance must also be based on past experience
with regard to the number of substitutes
needed in the past.
Appeal No. 1876-CPUS-78. Prior to filing her initial claim, the
claimant had last worked as a school crossing guard, employed by
the City of Corpus Christi. She was laid off due to lack of work
caused by the closing of the schools at the end of the spring semester
and had a reasonable assurance that she would be reemployed
by the City in the same capacity during the coming fall semester.
HELD: Since the claimant was an employee of the City of
Corpus Christi and not of any public school district or any other
educational institution, Section 207.041 of the Act was not applicable
to her.
# The following is current Commission policy, Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782 (TPU 105.00), with regard to substitute teachers:
The school district must furnish to the Commission written statements which provide facts that the substitute teacher has been asked to continue in the same capacity for the following academic year. Simply placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following year does not establish reasonable assurance. It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship to resume at the beginning of the following year. The assurance must also be based on past experience with regard to the number of substitutes needed in the past.
# The following are some factors the Hearing Officer should keep in mind when deciding whether or not a substitute teacher had reasonable assurance of being called the next year or term:
1. The Hearing Officer should find out how long the claimant has been on a substitute teacher list for this employer and how many times they have been called.
2. The Hearing Officer should also determine the total number of people on the past substitute list and the probable number of people on the next year's list.
3. The method the employer uses in determining what people will be called from the substitute list should be explored.
Post a Comment
The school district must furnish to the Commission written statements which provide facts that the substitute teacher has been asked to continue in the same capacity for the following academic year. Simply placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following year does not establish reasonable assurance. It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship to resume at the beginning of the following year. The assurance must also be based on past experience with regard to the number of substitutes needed in the past.
# The following are some factors the Hearing Officer should keep in mind when deciding whether or not a substitute teacher had reasonable assurance of being called the next year or term:
1. The Hearing Officer should find out how long the claimant has been on a substitute teacher list for this employer and how many times they have been called.
2. The Hearing Officer should also determine the total number of people on the past substitute list and the probable number of people on the next year's list.
3. The method the employer uses in determining what people will be called from the substitute list should be explored.
<< Home
