- 3 -
Petitioner and United agreed to a nonbinding mediation
proceeding, held on February 1, 1990. Prior to the mediation
proceeding, petitioner submitted a mediation summary which stated
in part:
[Petitioner] was employed by [United] on a full
time permanent basis starting in May 1985. * * * The
Personnel Policy Handbook which is relevant to this
case contains several important passages which confirm
that [petitioner's] employment required good cause for
discharge * * *.
Nevertheless, [United] has contested in this
litigation the nature of employment, claiming that
[petitioner] was an at-will employee and could be fired
without just cause.
* * * After being hired * * * [petitioner's]
employment continued without incident, and with good
performance in the ensuing months. * * *
In November of 1985, * * * despite assurances of
continued job security, a great number of people began
losing their jobs. In each case, [United] * * * had
put together stated reasons or allegations supposedly
justifying the terminations. * * *
[United's] alleged reason for terminating
[petitioner], although [United] claims not to have
needed a reason, was that [petitioner] was guilty of
misconduct. [United] alleges that on July 1, 1986,
[petitioner] got into the wrong truck to go out to do
field work. * * *
* * * * * * *
Analysis of the losses suffered by [petitioner] is
being performed currently by an expert, * * * Mr.
Charles Monroe, and it is expected that he may have a
verbal informal and unofficial calculation by the time
of Mediation, concerning the projected losses of
[petitioner] in terms of benefits, back pay and front
pay. * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011