- 3 -
Seattle, Washington. From petitioner’s point of view, the higher
level position in Bozeman was petitioner’s old position with a
new title. Petitioner was offered the alternative of a position
in Seattle or a sales position in Montana, and the acceptance of
either position would require the relocation of petitioner’s
family. The positions offered to petitioner would not have been
considered promotions.
Petitioner had little warning preceding these events, and he
was profoundly affected by them. When petitioner was advised
that he was not going to be offered the new position in Bozeman,
he asked for an explanation, but no explanation was provided,
further upsetting petitioner. Petitioner had heard that other
employees had been offered "attractive buy-outs".
Petitioner sought severance pay from Holnam under its policy
and procedure manual, but he was refused on the grounds that
severance pay was only available for involuntary separations.
Thereafter, petitioner was offered a choice between a severance
package or continuing in a particular job position, but he could
not come to terms with company representatives. Petitioner would
have been satisfied with a reasonable severance package, but the
company representatives did not provide what he regarded as
reasonable alternatives. Subsequently, petitioner hired Michael
J. San Souci, an attorney, to seek redress from Holnam. Attorney
San Souci sent a nine-page letter, dated October 29, 1993, to
Alex Pappas, vice president of Holnam's Human Resource
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011