My company recently announced that my location will be closing in a month. They laid off one Regional Mgr, one General Mgr, one sales person and gave notices to two other sales people (including myself) stating that they wanted to retain our employment through above end date. At which time, we "may" be eligible for severance and a pay out for a retention bonus. Of course, for the retention bonus we would need to remain employed through the end date. And, to receive severance we would need to perform our duties satisfactorily until our closing date.

When I spoke with HR at the time we were given notice of the closure, I was told, as were the other sales people, that our positions were being eliminated and there were no other positions available to transfer to, even in another location. Too, I was personally informed that if there were a position available, my skill set did not meet the requirements of the position. Curious. Considering I've held the position for 3 years and my sales are up more than 1400% - that isn't a typo. Too, I've received several company and client gifts for successful sales. In addition, the other people were informed the same about their skill sets. Even more curious is that the newest employee in our location, but in a different department, was actually promoted to another position in my department in another location...even though his skill set is completely inexperienced for that position.

Now, three days ago, I went online, as usual, searching for job openings. And, what do I find, but all of the positions that have been eliminated in my location being advertised in other local locations.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a person in California could not be laid off only to have the same exact position offered to other applicants within a specified period of time...3, 6, 9 months. And, if the position was offered/advertised, then the employer would need to offer the currently-employeed-soon-to-be-laid-off and recently laid off employees the position. I just can't remember where I found this info and cannot locate it again. And, as you can imagine, I'm really irritated over the whole issue.

Any thoughts?

I never heard of that law I would be surprised that it exists. If it does please cite it. It is difficult to say from your post if the termination was wrong under Ca law.
I suggest you speak to an attorney.
JoeC

One of the salespeople who was laid off the day we were informed of the closing is seeking legal advise on some other issues and may find out something on this.

However, my recollection on the reading I had previously found on the subject is this: What would prevent a company from continually laying people off (experienced or not) and hiring new people for the exact same titled position, at the exact same rate of pay, exact benefits, etc. On top of all of this, there are two of us STILL employed while they are advertising for our positions. I'll keep digging for more info, though.

I'll keep digging for more info, though.

Good luck. I don't think any amount of digging will yield gold or even silver.

Joec is as great an employee advocate as could be and would tell you if there was a law to support your case. There is no such law. Absent any illegal reason to fire you, you have no case.

It would be hard for a company to overlook superb sales performance when firing someone, but it could happen and it would not be illegal to replace a great performer with a poor one.

O.K the only thing I can tell you,and this is where some people may think it's a law.
California courts were the first to recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment relationship. In Lawrence M.Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., an American Airlines employee who had worked satisfactorily for the company for 18 years was terminated without any reason given. A California appellate court held that, in virtue of the airline’s express policy of adjudicating personnel disputes and the longevity of the employee’s service, the employer could not fire the employee without good cause. The court stated that “Termination of employment without legal cause after such a period of time offends the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing” and that, from the covenant, “a duty arose on the part of...American Airlines…to do nothing which would deprive...the employee...of the benefits of the employment...having accrued during [the employee’s] 18 years of employment.
That however is not the same as a law,although what courts are saying about the law is every bit as important as the law itself. Their is nothing codified (to my knowledge) in the Ca.Labor code other than the "at-will" presumption (Cal Labor Code 2922).
The only way to find out for sure if the termination falls with in the parameters outlined in Cleary is for a thorough review by an attorney that has won a case or two under covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
I would contact the bar and tell the secretary that answers you are looking for an employment attorney that deals with this.
Their is no way anyone here including the attorneys we have could give you a solid answer without doing an intake.
JoeC

However, my recollection on the reading I had previously found on the subject is this: What would prevent a company from continually laying people off (experienced or not) and hiring new people for the exact same titled position, at the exact same rate of pay, exact benefits, etc. On top of all of this, there are two of us STILL employed while they are advertising for our positions. I'll keep digging for more info, though.

That is bad business policy not a violation covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
If employers had to answer for every bad business decision,courts would be in constant session.
JoeC

If employers had to answer for every bad business decision,courts would be in constant session.
JoeC

Joe, you are very lucky that I won't see you in court for ruining my monitor. I had no beverage in my mouth when I read that comment, which is quite accurate.

Hey sorry bud, never drink soda or beer and read these posts.
JoeC

You got that right, Joe my friend!!! :D

It is why my computer is on the first floor,if I throw it out the window.It still has a chance. The second floor,I would be calling Dell.
JoeC

I've found threatening my computer with flying lessons is at least as effective as anything IT or tech support suggests when it acts up:D

Ah, there it is...good faith and fair dealing. I actually didn't mention the word "law" previously because I couldn't recall that it was or wasn't. However, the "good faith" issue is what I had read about before back in 2001 when everyone was being laid off, including myself.

And, now, I remember an arbitrator at the labour board also mentioned "good faith" when I took the same employer to the board for not paying all vacation due. They had a use it or lose it vacation policy, which is against CA law. I won that hands down and received thousands more than than owed me. My current company also has a use it or lose policy (although, they're based in another state). But, that doesn't matter. Now, after all this, I can't wait to see if they pay me all of my vacation since I only used a small fraction of last fiscals vacation days and none this fiscal.

I must say that this board has so much great info and people to help. Thanks!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070328/circuit_city_layoffs.html?.v=10

Ah...that's an interesting read. Thanks for the link! And, it's exactly what I see happening in my situation with inexperienced sales staff for a specialised industry. What's even more moronic is that, in contrast to Circuit City, my company is paying the same dollar to new hires as was paid to tenured and very knowledgable sales staff.