Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/9/2003 5:37:07 AM EDT
I vented about this in the general forum, but now it's time to strap the thinking cap back on. Here it goes: I am currently employed by a large local organization. My position is a 3/4-time position that is renewed on an annual basis. At the last time of renewal (July 1, 2002) I was verbally assured by my supervisor that my contract as a 3/4-time employee would be continued until September, at which point I will be able to start working full-time. At that time I would automatically be rehired as a full-time professional employee. This promise was extended to me after I had verbally committed to remaining in my position for a minimum of three years (this position has previously had a very high turnover.) Over the past week the organization has been conducting interviews for a vacant position that is identical to mine, and as the interviews came to an end the hiring committee was left with two very promising applicants. Somehow the choice was made to hire both applicants and in the process terminate my contract as of June 30, 2003. My complaints are: 1. I had a verbal contract from my supervisor that my employment contract would be continued for three years, 2. I am being replaced without having had the chance to go through the application process as the other applicants, 3. Replacing me will result in added expenses to my employer, although the organization claims to be in a budget crunch and has already cut subordinate positions from my department. I am aware that Arizona is an employment-at-will state, and that based on this I might not have a legal standing. However, not being a legal professional, I thought a verbal agreement/contract took precedence over employment-at-will statutes? What do you guys think?
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:51:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 5:53:14 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:55:30 AM EDT
buck up little bro. we are all short timers. we just don't know it yet.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:24:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: PS: If they did not allow you to interview or apply for the jobs, you may have a legitimate gripe. There are regulations on fair employment. I will have to leave that up to the lawyers here.
View Quote
I was thinking about that too. The way they're going about it actually violates their employment policy forn hiring since my position never was advertized, and the advertized position has been filled.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:34:17 PM EDT
Very politely ask why, if they were not going to honor their verbal commitment as to full time employment, they did not give you the opportunity to interview for the full time position (two positions as it turns out). It is perfectly acceptable to express your disappointment in the process. After that, give them a little time to stew before you talk to a lawyer.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 10:11:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Oslow: Very politely ask why, if they were not going to honor their verbal commitment as to full time employment, they did not give you the opportunity to interview for the full time position (two positions as it turns out).
View Quote
Yesterday afternoon I did get a chance to talk to my department head, and he said he had no recollection of any such promises to me, even though I told him that my supervisor remembers them, and we both presented the information to the DH prior to me signing my last contract. He did tell me though that there is a chance that either the steering committee says no to hiring the applicant, or the applicant might decline the position, in either case I would get to keep the job for another year.
It is perfectly acceptable to express your disappointment in the process.
View Quote
I did, and I did it in a respectful way. I told them that it would have been better if they had included me in the process as the decision was made without all information at hand. I spoke to the person who was in charge of the selection committee, and she stated that they thought I was a part time employee (as in 20 hrs a week) and not a 3/4-hire. Also she did not know about the verbal promise (and there were no reason for her to know about it anyway, it's the DH who should have stuck to it.) Anyway, once I spoke to her she told me that they would not have presented their suggestion to the DH if they had known this information. So now the only person who wants this is the DH, because he doesn't want to go back on his decision.
After that, give them a little time to stew before you talk to a lawyer.
View Quote
I contacted a lawyer prior to talking to the DH yesterday, just to verify whether or not I have any legal standing.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 10:25:32 AM EDT
People do actually forget things and screw up. Reasonable people would do what they could to correct the situation. I hope things work out well for you.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 10:41:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Oslow: People do actually forget things and screw up. Reasonable people would do what they could to correct the situation.
View Quote
Exactly. However, the DH won't go back on his decision, and furthermore he did state that the promise never should have been made to me (if it in fact was made) as it would have been against policy. This guy is all about policy as policy is a nice way to get out of making any decisions on your own.
Top Top