(1) (a) For the purposes of this section, "temporary help contracting firm" means any person who is in the business of employing individuals and, for compensation from a third party, providing those individuals to perform work for the third party, under the supervision of the third party.
(b) Repealed.
(2) Employment with a temporary help contracting firm is characterized by a series of limited-term assignments of an employee to a third party, based on an agreement between the temporary help contracting firm and the third party. A separate employment agreement exists between the temporary help contracting firm and each individual it hires as an employee. Completion of an assignment for a third party by an employee employed by a temporary help contracting firm does not, in itself, terminate the employment agreement between the temporary help contracting firm and the employee.
(3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 94, p. 637, § 3, effective July 1, 1994.)
(4) At the time of hire a temporary help contracting firm shall provide written notice to each employee which clearly states that the employee is required to contact the firm upon completion of an assignment.
(5) If an employee of a temporary help contracting firm receives the written notice pursuant to subsection (4) of this section and does not contact the firm upon completion of an assignment in compliance with such written notice, such employee shall be held to have voluntarily terminated employment for purposes of determining benefits pursuant to section 8-73-108 (5)(e)(XXII).
(6) If an employee of a temporary help contracting firm contacts the firm upon completion of an assignment in compliance with subsection (4) of this section and does not continue employment in a new assignment, such employee shall be considered separated under the provisions of section 8-73-108 (4)(a).
Source: L. 90: Entire section added, p. 606, § 2, effective April 16. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 637, § 3, effective July 1. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 776, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1)(b) repealed, p. 43, § 2, effective March 11.
ANNOTATION
Employee-claimant of a temporary help contracting firm is entitled to a determination whether he was "at fault" for his separation even though he was disqualified pursuant to the provisions of this section and not directly under one of the statutory disqualifying provisions of § 8-73-108. Velo v. Employment Solutions Pers., 953 P.2d 1295 (Colo. App. 1998).
No error in determination by hearing officer that disqualifying provisions of subsection (5) of this section and § 8-73-108 (5)(e)(XXII) are applicable to claimant. On the last day of his final assignment, employer temporary help contracting firm notified claimant that his assignment was ending. Subsequently, employer offered claimant additional assignments which claimant did not accept. There is no evidence that claimant informed his employer that he was available for further assignments. Moreover, claimant did not contact employer in accordance with the written contract he had received. Accordingly, court upheld that portion of hearing officer's order stating that claimant was responsible for his separation and should be disqualified from the receipt of his unemployment benefits pursuant to subsection (5) of this section and § 8-73-108 (5)(e)(XXII). Velo v. Employment Solutions Pers., 988 P.2d 1139 (Colo. App. 1998).
Claimant is entitled to a determination whether he was "at fault" for his separation notwithstanding the applicability of the disqualifying provisions of this section. To determine otherwise would abrogate the overriding legislative policy that unemployment benefits are to be awarded only to those claimants who are unemployed through no fault of their own. There appears no legislative intent to treat unemployment compensation claimants who work for temporary help agencies differently from other unemployment compensation claimants with regard to the issue of fault. Accordingly, matter must be remanded to panel for it to consider "fault" issue and, based on its resolution of that issue, to enter a new order on whether claimant is entitled to benefits. Velo v. Employment Solutions Pers., 988 P.2d 1139 (Colo. App. 1998).