RIF didn't follow written company policy

[ttl4ml]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan
Company has instituted several RIFs over the last 8 months. Latest one included me. I immediately searched 65 open internal positions and applied to 2 openings (both one step down from existing position) that I am fully qualified for (this level position currently reports to me in a different department). One hiring manager wouldn't talk to me, and the other gave me a short general discussion. Neither hired me. Specific written Policy on RIFs states that the RIF employee will be reallocated to any lateral or below position they are qualified for, even to the point of displacing a lower seniority employee. HR said they couldn't control the department heads. I then sent a copy of the policy to HR, and they didn't respond. Soon they will ask me to sign a wavier. I am damaged as this company relocated me to their location 2 years ago and will lose value selling my home in this market. I suspect they are holding out for a younger candidate. Is this blatent disregard for their own RIF-specific written policy actionable?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

Doesn't sound like they are doing anything illegal to me.

 

[Beth3]

Is this blatent disregard for their own RIF-specific written policy actionable? Not likely. An employer's policy has no force of law and I imagine the policy manual/employee handbook has disclaimers in various places stating that the manual does not constitute a contract, the company may change, amend, deviate from, and discontinue policies as they wish, and that all employees are employees at will.

 

[cbg]

I'm always astounded by these assumptions that anytime a laid off employee doesn't get hired for the first opening they apply for, it MUST be for some illegal reason. Doesn't it ever occur to them that just maybe they weren't the only laid off employee that applied and that the company can't hire both of them?

Got any evidence for that blatant assumption that they're holding off for a younger employee?

 

[ttl4ml]

The company has a specific policy in RIFs, as well as a Statement of Ethics valuing qualified employees. The company, instead of following their own policy, RIFs an employee over here (with all good performance reviews), while in another department outside candidates are afforded a full collaborative interview process, for essentially the same job. I thought a RIF needed a clear plan of work reformation, where they couldn't just "eliminate" a person, only to fill essentially the position again. After all, the company knows a lot more information on the RIF than outside candidates, like their age, race, etc.

Even if no legal issue is here, there is clearly an ethics problem.

 

[cbg]

I thought a RIF needed a clear plan of work reformation, where they couldn't just "eliminate" a person, only to fill essentially the position again

Then you were mistaken.

 

[Zigner]

Even if no legal issue is here, there is clearly an ethics problem.

I would disagree with that statement.

 

[ttl4ml]

I would be more than happy if another RIF was hired, unfortunately, they aren't. If a company hires someone out of a 10 year career with a solid company, using their company policies as a stated representation of their comittment to the employee, relocates them, maintains an expectation of performance from the employee, and then RIFs them while other positions are being filled, without any further responsibility to them whatsoever... I think there's a problem, and if employees knew it coming in it would impact decisions to join them. Especially considering the written aspect of this false comittment

 

[ttl4ml]

I'm always astounded by these assumptions that anytime a laid off employee doesn't get hired for the first opening they apply for, it MUST be for some illegal reason. Doesn't it ever occur to them that just maybe they weren't the only laid off employee that applied and that the company can't hire both of them?

Got any evidence for that blatant assumption that they're holding off for a younger employee?

I asked a very specific question, not a general "anytime any employee gets laid off".

I suspected age discrimination, not assumed, only because of the general statements made by the hiring manager during a discussion, evidence for which would be impossible

 

[eerelations]

1. How old are you?

2. Please quote, to the best of your memory, those statements made by the hiring manager.

 

[ttl4ml]

Seems to be a strong company bias here with regard to my question.

I understand "at will" employment climate in today's workplace, and I also understand that companies and change their policies at will.

But I also believe that if a company is going to represent itself with written policy (by the way, this policy was marked as "updated in 2008") then they should have some responsibility toward that representation, since it benefits them through attracting talent. Companies certainly are held to other statements of policy they make, like compensation and accounting policies.

I guess we disagree on the definition of the word Ethics

 

[ttl4ml]

1. How old are you?

2. Please quote, to the best of your memory, those statements made by the hiring manager.

I'm 50.

The hiring manager remarked that I was with my previous company 10 years, then the one before that 10 years. Then he said "Wow that's a lot of experience", but never talked about the actual experience, just the length. The rest was inferences to how fast paced the position was, and how it was his job just a few months earlier, and he needed someone like himself to do it - he's late 20's early 30's

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Seems to be a strong company bias here with regard to my question.

The law is the law. At this point, you've given us nothing to indicate that any federal or state law has been violated. Sorry it isn't what you want to hear.

 

[mlane58]

I'm 50.

The hiring manager remarked that I was with my previous company 10 years, then the one before that 10 years. Then he said "Wow that's a lot of experience", but never talked about the actual experience, just the length. The rest was inferences to how fast paced the position was, and how it was his job just a few months earlier, and he needed someone like himself to do it - he's late 20's early 30's

So you are trying infer age discrimination out of that statement? Please! not even close!

 

[commentator]

commentator

Why not talk to the EEOC in your state and see if they would be willing to issue you a letter based on what you've told us about? You have nothing to lose by doing so.

Granted, most of here us giving experienced opinions don't feel that there is much chance. People tend to feel that they are more protected, that things should be more ethical or fair than they are, but the fact is, employers really have the edge in most legal situations regarding hiring and work issues. But it will probably make you feel better to at least take it as far as you can.

The thing is, even if it is in the handbook, as someone has said, there are probably lots of disclaimers, and no, legally, they do not have to do what's in their handbook. They never have to hire anyone. And they will doubtless go back and say they didn't hire you because they had more qualified candidates based on their job searches.

In the meantime, please take full advantage of all the benefits of dislocated workers, unemployment benefits, retraining, COBRA suppliments, etc. Because even if the best possible outcome takes place, and the company decides to honor its handbook statements and rehire you on another position, it will probably not be anytime soon.