My father was dismissed today after almost 20 years of employment with a large home improvement company. Times are tough, I understand, but something just seems wrong.
Last week, he was recently under investigation for fixing something that district neglected to repair after 9 months. This gave his store shorter call times and made his store look better by call numbers (there is no incentive for shorter call times, and he just wanted to improve the quality of in-store calls for employees). He was accused of tampering with the phones to get better call times, which again, has no bearings on performance or anything. They questioned him for four hours, and the guy wanted him to just say he was tampering with the numbers to make the store look better. My dad said he was tired of a shoddy phone system and admitted to testing the batteries in the phones during lunch and break times. He was then coerced into writing a statement (which is not mandatory under the investigation). He refused to admit any wrongdoings because he was getting stuff done that should've been done earlier (other stores admit problems).
Fast forward to today. Tapes from the investigation reveal he was on a floor without an apron, wearing a jersey, and walked past a customer without helping them. They didn't let him explain or ask him why. They let him go. No warning, no write-up. He tried to explain that he was fixing the call boxes on his lunch break, hence the reason why he was sans apron, and was on a mission to test them. Nothing. They also said him wearing a jersey to work was unprofessional. Monday's jersey day. All employees wear jerseys. The investigation on the call boxes was closed, and he was not at fault. No past performance reviews were brought up, he has no write-ups. After dismissing him, they said he had four fewer weeks of paid vacation than he actually did, and if he had a problem, it's upon him to provide the burden of proof. Luckily he is able to do so via paper documentation.
I'm not a legal expert, I just this doesn't hold water. Nobody at his job does. I realize he was hired at-will, but I know the state of California has Covenant of good faith and fair dealing exceptions. And since he wasn't downsized, this just doesn't seem like "just cause" for termination. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what that is, but it seems more like retaliation for implicating that the guy doing the investigation knew about the problem for 9 months and refused to fix it (a fact acknowledged by the investigator). Does this violate the exception?
Last week, he was recently under investigation for fixing something that district neglected to repair after 9 months. This gave his store shorter call times and made his store look better by call numbers (there is no incentive for shorter call times, and he just wanted to improve the quality of in-store calls for employees). He was accused of tampering with the phones to get better call times, which again, has no bearings on performance or anything. They questioned him for four hours, and the guy wanted him to just say he was tampering with the numbers to make the store look better. My dad said he was tired of a shoddy phone system and admitted to testing the batteries in the phones during lunch and break times. He was then coerced into writing a statement (which is not mandatory under the investigation). He refused to admit any wrongdoings because he was getting stuff done that should've been done earlier (other stores admit problems).
Fast forward to today. Tapes from the investigation reveal he was on a floor without an apron, wearing a jersey, and walked past a customer without helping them. They didn't let him explain or ask him why. They let him go. No warning, no write-up. He tried to explain that he was fixing the call boxes on his lunch break, hence the reason why he was sans apron, and was on a mission to test them. Nothing. They also said him wearing a jersey to work was unprofessional. Monday's jersey day. All employees wear jerseys. The investigation on the call boxes was closed, and he was not at fault. No past performance reviews were brought up, he has no write-ups. After dismissing him, they said he had four fewer weeks of paid vacation than he actually did, and if he had a problem, it's upon him to provide the burden of proof. Luckily he is able to do so via paper documentation.
I'm not a legal expert, I just this doesn't hold water. Nobody at his job does. I realize he was hired at-will, but I know the state of California has Covenant of good faith and fair dealing exceptions. And since he wasn't downsized, this just doesn't seem like "just cause" for termination. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what that is, but it seems more like retaliation for implicating that the guy doing the investigation knew about the problem for 9 months and refused to fix it (a fact acknowledged by the investigator). Does this violate the exception?
