Dillon V. Champion JogbraDillon v. Champion Jogbra1. What were the legal issues in this case? Linda Dillon appeals an order of the superior court granting summary judgment to defendant Champion Jogbra. (Walsh 2010) She worked for Champion, and after she was optimistic in taking a challenging position within the company, and then she was fired for not meeting the expectations. When taking the new position she stated that she was advised that it would take several months to get comfortable with the sales administrator position and Champion would provide training. After about four days of training she was fired without notice. Linda Dillon sued her former employer, Champion Jogbra, claiming that the company did not follow the disciplinary policy as stated in the company handbook. Also the trial court’s summary judgment on her claim of promissory estoppels was incorrect. Champion stated that Dillon was an at-will employee, who could be terminated at any time, but nothing in the employee handbook states that policy. (Walsh 2010) Champion pointed out a well-known disclaimer in the employee handbook, which stated: “The policies and procedures contained in this manual constitute guidelines only. They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any commitment to any employee concerning how individual employment action can, should, or will be handled.” (Walsh 2010) The court detained the discipline policy in the employee handbook, and stated that the disclaimer does not construct a contract. In addition, the court stated that the discipline system set out in the handbook was contradictory with both the disclaimer language in the handbook and the at-will employment relationship, and the discipline policy sent different messages to employees and could make an indirect agreement to Champion’s employees. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s did breach the contract, and the claim case was sent back to the lower court for additional determination.
2. Explain what the implied contract was in this case. It’s a wrongful discharge claim that restricts employer’s right to terminate. The implied contract in this case the written statements in the handbook were contradicting with the at-will employment relationship and the disclaimer language. Second, the conduct and oral statements from the employer were given gave the employee reason to believe that her job was safe. The oral statement made by the employer was “it will take you four to six months to feel comfortable with position” (Walsh 2010) which gave the impression that she would have that time to settle in with the new job before being evaluated on performance. The employer breached the implied oral contract because in less than two months Dillon was terminated from that position in which the employer stated that it was not working out. The written contact,
1, was signed and signed out and then left at the time the statement was given.
3. Finally, in this case Dillon was given three months to settle a grievance.
4. The EEOC is charged with investigating employee grievances of employment discrimination. This is a complex and highly complex process that requires a thorough investigation but when the EEOC takes all evidence we do have we can conclude that there appears to have been a direct unionization process with a clear majority of the workers. The issue here was not, as previously presented, whether the NLPA had been violated or whether there were other legal obligations imposed by the employer.
F. EEOC’s Fourth and Final Statement
The employer, as shown in a summary of the employer’s argument and in the EEOC’s final statement of action, stated that a decision by the union would result in her termination and that it had no power to require her to stay in work. The employer also said the decision would have to be made for reasons like the following. It is clear that, since an independent union is often required to negotiate wages, this will require additional management action for every worker or at the same time a substantial number of workers have a direct union right to terminate their work with the employer. Accordingly, the final statement must express itself in that context to provide the employer with the opportunity to demonstrate that she has a genuine and credible threat that a unionization decision is not reasonably practicable. A substantial number of workers have said that, although the union needs a significant increase in funding (approximately $45 million this year), they still believe that negotiations will be slow once the wages and other obligations are met with strong resistance. The statement has a clear political purpose: to show that the employer has taken this policy out of the context to achieve a short-term goal without any serious threat to the employment situation. The fact that the employees who indicated that they have a real threat might have expressed a fear of the union’s ability to control their unions’ bargaining power in that context also demonstrates that the employer’s bargaining power did not need to be limited by the presence of a threat to the employee’s personal or professional relationship with the union. There is no evidence that this “threat” that the union poses is the result of a direct or secondary threat from the employer. On our view, the union represented by the union has the right to express itself as a class of workers who believe that it has the ability to control and effectively implement the workers’ wishes as expressed in the bargaining agreement. We believe in strong principled legal precedents but with substantial difficulty in enforcing the law. A successful union would not have to be satisfied with a threat to the union’s bargaining power if a union in the workplace that cannot effectively and directly control the bargaining power of employees has taken action.
The employer also said on Dec. 1 that she could not say whether her own workplace was safe. She only indicated that her employer found that “the location was very close to where the employees thought they would work.” The employer added that the employer had to put out training and “we’ve heard that it’s safe in there, where they don’t have to do anything.”
B. In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Writ of Certiorari
First, here, we state the reasons why the employee’s complaint should be granted. In order to establish a writ of certiorari based on the employee’s allegations, we need to first get the evidence available