Differences between Unsatisfactory Working Conditions, Hazardous Working Conditions, and a Substantial Change in Working Conditions for Colorado unemployment insurance benefits

Understanding a Key Difference in Colorado Unemployment Law

Unsatisfactory working conditions do not consider the working conditions of other workers performing the same or similar work for other employers in the area. Hazardous working conditions and a substantial change in working conditions both consider what is happening for this employer and for the local industry. Unsatisfactory working conditions objectively evaluate what a reasonable person in a similar situation would do under the same circumstances at the time they quit. We often view ourselves as reasonable individuals. However, a worker's perception of a situation that leads to quitting may differ from the reality on a larger scale. I have authored decisions where I stated that the former employee reasonably believed the work environment was completely unsatisfactory. Yet, their perception was inaccurate due to a strong, unwavering belief or a lack of knowledge.

Section 8-73-108(4)(c) C.R.S. — Objectively Unsatisfactory or Hazardous Conditions

This section applies when a worker resigns due to objectively unsatisfactory or hazardous working conditions. This means that a reasonable person in the same situation would have also chosen to quit.

Several factors are considered when determining if conditions were objectively unsatisfactory:

• The degree of risk to the worker’s health, safety, or morals

• The worker’s physical fitness, training, experience, and earnings history

• The distance from home to the workplace

• Only for hazardous working conditions, a comparison of working conditions of other workers performing the same or similar work for the same or other employers in the local area

  
  

Important Notes on Section 8-73-108(4)(c)

• For a claim under 4(c) regarding hazardous working conditions, there must be evidence of what working conditions are like for similar jobs with other employers in the locality. This does not apply to decisions concerning only objectively unsatisfactory working conditions. The hearing officer has discretion in what section of law to apply if supported by the facts.

• If the allegedly “hazardous” conditions are common or generally prevailing among similar workers and employers, the situation cannot be classified as “hazardous” for unemployment purposes.

• However, even if all employers in the industry share the same conditions, a full award may still be granted if, considering a worker’s personal circumstances, those conditions pose an objectively significant risk to their health, safety, or morals within the hearing officer's discretion.

  
  

In short, Section 4(c) examines whether the environment itself was objectively unreasonable for a typical person in that situation — not whether the conditions recently changed.

Section 8-73-108(4)(d) C.R.S. — A Substantial Change in Working Conditions

Section 4(d) applies when there has been a change in working conditions. This change transforms the job into one that is substantially less favorable than before.

Key Points About Section 8-73-108(4)(d)

• It requires a change in working conditions, unlike 4(c).

• The change must make the job objectively less favorable for the employee.

• If the new working conditions are the same as those generally prevailing for others in similar jobs, the change is not considered substantial.

• This is not a “business as usual” situation. It addresses cases when an employer alters the job significantly — for example, cutting pay, increasing hours, or changing work location or safety practices.

• A worker can agree and accept the new working conditions through their actions or statements. If the change was 10 months ago and the worker stayed, even if they complained, they may be viewed as agreeing to the change.

  
  

Takeaway for Employers and Employees

When evaluating unemployment insurance eligibility:

• 4(c) focuses on whether the job itself posed unreasonable or hazardous conditions that any reasonable worker would not tolerate. If hazardous working conditions are the issue, they will not be considered hazardous if they are the same or substantially the same as the working conditions generally prevailing for other workers engaged in similar activities.

• 4(d) focuses on whether the employer changed the job in a way that made it substantially less favorable than before.

  
  

Realistic Scenarios Illustrating Sections 8-73-108(4)(c) and (4)(d) C.R.S.

Scenario 1: Section 8-73-108(4)(c) (Objectively Unsatisfactory Conditions)

Maria, a healthcare aide, works for a nursing facility. For months, she is routinely assigned many more patients than allowed by state regulations. She asks her employer for help, but the last five new hires left within a week. Maria realizes she can no longer help patients as required and has taken sick leave to address worsening high blood pressure issues in the 30 days before she quit.

Analysis: Maria resigns not due to a specific change but because the overall working conditions are objectively unsatisfactory. They pose a significant health risk to her. Since a reasonable person in Maria's situation would also resign, she is entitled to an award of unemployment benefits.

Scenario 2: Section 8-73-108(4)(d) (Substantial, Unfavorable Change in Conditions)

David, a warehouse worker, has worked weekdays from 9 AM to 5 PM for three years. Suddenly, management changes the schedule, requiring him to work rotating 12-hour overnight shifts and reducing his pay by 20%. David tries the new schedule, but the drastic change makes it impossible for him to care for his children or maintain his second part-time job.

Analysis: Here, David quits due to a substantial, objectively unfavorable change to his work schedule and pay. His situation shifted from typical 9-5 hours at a stable wage to long, irregular shifts at reduced pay. If this kind of schedule and pay cut is not the norm in similar warehouse work in the locality, David will qualify under 4(d). However, if the new schedule and pay are generally prevailing for similar jobs with other employers, his claim could be denied.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between objectively unsatisfactory conditions and substantial changes in working conditions is crucial for both employees and employers. By navigating these regulations effectively, you can make informed decisions regarding unemployment claims.

For more information on navigating unemployment issues, please visit Greschler Unemployment Representation.

---wix---