Hiring - position accepted under negotiated terms - company refuses to honor.

[Dr Sys]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in NC but the positions in question are both in SC, though I am "homed" according to their system in NC. The company is (obviously) multi-state.

Hello everyone. I was employed with a multinational company that decided to outsource the IT roles to vendors. The main vendor agreed to retain a certain number of people under certain terms - though the job functions would change somewhat. The main vendor brought in a 3rd party vendor to assist and the 3rd party also agreed to the above terms (specifically - wage). When the rollover date approached, the vendors realized that they had need of additional personal, and offered positions to the more senior employees who were not scheduled to be retained in any form. I am one of those "additional" types.

The position I was initially offered - due to the specific job functions and personal obligations - I refused. My employer then worked with me and they negotiated in writing (via email) with both vendors terms of my employment specifically relating to the role I was to play. Under those terms I accepted employment with the vendor. They proceeded with my hiring, but have refused to place me in the position agreed upon. Rather, they initially gave me no work (though they did pay me for it) - then asked if I would be willing to assist another employee handling the role I turned down. Now they have officially acknowledged in email that they see me as the "primary" in the role I refused - all while not ever providing me with the ability or opportunity to do the role that what initially negotiated. Please note this is a full time position, not contract.

I refused the initial offer and accepted the negotiated terms for a reason - and at this point they have intentionally abused my teamwork ethic and desire to add value to them by their actions of refusing to honor the agreement and instead putting me in the role I had refused.

Please realize now that the "official transition" date is past and my former employer is now locked into their own contract without the ability to push for the intended outcome.
What recourse do I have under these circumstances?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Zigner]

You could look for other employment.

 

[Dr Sys]

You could look for other employment.

True - and I am.

However, I would prefer to either have the role I accepted (which at this point is going to be difficult to make happen given their actions) or at least not be facing the possibility of being terminated because I was not able to do a job I did not accept. Conditions exist where I am forced to decline to take on assignments for the role they see me in (the one I refused) and it will be only a matter of time before they choose to take punitive action because of it.

While I would like to gain other employment, the reality is that I may not do so before they choose to act because I am not "towing the line" their way. I have been a thorn in their side trying to get into the negotiated role since day 1 (not quite 3 months now) and have met nothing but resistance. Having a family means I have to consider the reality that if I do not find another position elsewhere and nothing changes, I may not be able to provide for them. Thus, I am seeking to find what alternatives exist to resolve this in a way that is honorable.

 

[cbg]

Yes or no. Do you have a legally binding and enforceable contract (not an email discussing negotiated terms, but a contract signed by both parties) that expressly states your role and your job duties?

 

[Dr Sys]

No - not as you are describing.

The terms were defined only in email - and in my reply to that email is where I specified that I accepted the position as defined under those terms. The vendor was a party in the entire exchange and proceeded only upon my acceptance to proceed with my employment.

The terms were clear in all relevant aspects - role and duties as well as wage and eligibility for benefits. In essence, it is an simply electronic version of an employment agreement, is it not?

 

[Zigner]

No - not as you are describing.

The terms were defined only in email - and in my reply to that email is where I specified that I accepted the position as defined under those terms. The vendor was a party in the entire exchange and proceeded only upon my acceptance to proceed with my employment.

The terms were clear in all relevant aspects - role and duties as well as wage and eligibility for benefits. In essence, it is an simply electronic version of an employment agreement, is it not?

An employer, absent a legally enforceable employment contract, is free to change the scope of employment.

 

[Chyvan]

it is an simply electronic version of an employment agreement, is it not?

No. One of the key elements in an employment "contract" is a DATE through which it runs. Absent that, the employer can hire you as a Manager at McDonalds with all kinds of written paperwork, and within hours of you starting they can CHANGE your job (because of at-will employment) and tell you to start flipping hamburgers in the back with a corresponding pay cut to boot.

When the employer didn't give you the job you agreed to, your remedy was to treat it as a firing from the job that you HAD, and a new offer of work, and go collect unemployment while looking for a job more to your liking, or suck it up and keep working there while looking for something else. However, the UI is probably off the table for you because you've been doing this job for 3 months. The time to do something about it is when you first discovered what was happening to you. Trying to get UI now will most likely be treated as "acceptance" or you'd have gotten out a lot sooner.

 

[Dr Sys]

Thanks to you both.

Well I will just have to stick things out and let things fall where they may. I am not looking to sue or get UI since I am getting a paycheck. Will just keep looking and see how it turns out. I really don't care to be with a company long term that treats technically skilled employees like this anyway. Again - thank you.

 

[LdiJ]

No. One of the key elements in an employment "contract" is a DATE through which it runs. Absent that, the employer can hire you as a Manager at McDonalds with all kinds of written paperwork, and within hours of you starting they can CHANGE your job (because of at-will employment) and tell you to start flipping hamburgers in the back with a corresponding pay cut to boot.

When the employer didn't give you the job you agreed to, your remedy was to treat it as a firing from the job that you HAD, and a new offer of work, and go collect unemployment while looking for a job more to your liking, or suck it up and keep working there while looking for something else. However, the UI is probably off the table for you because you've been doing this job for 3 months. The time to do something about it is when you first discovered what was happening to you. Trying to get UI now will most likely be treated as "acceptance" or you'd have gotten out a lot sooner.

Slight correction...he won't get UI if he quits, but if they terminate him UI is still a possibility.

 

[Dr Sys]

A "date" huh...

Actually - since the "DATE" was mentioned - part of the email exchange after I accepted the position was that they needed paperwork or else the position would be withdrawn/expired. In fact - they initially "expired" it claiming they had not gotten notification of my acceptance - they then backed off of that and instead "extended" it so that the required paperwork could be turned in.

Does that satisfy the DATE requirement?

 

[cbg]

No, it doesn't - not unless there is also a date that the position is to last until.

Without that, it can be changed at any time.

 

[Zigner]

Actually - since the "DATE" was mentioned - part of the email exchange after I accepted the position was that they needed paperwork or else the position would be withdrawn/expired. In fact - they initially "expired" it claiming they had not gotten notification of my acceptance - they then backed off of that and instead "extended" it so that the required paperwork could be turned in.

Does that satisfy the DATE requirement?

No, it likely does not. You may wish to take all of your documentation to a local employment law attorney for personal review.

 

[Chyvan]

if they terminate him UI is still a possibility.

Yes, if they fire him because he's being a pain in their side, he has a great shot at UI, but that's entirely different than "quitting three months later because he wasn't ever put in the job that he thought he was supposed to be getting" vs "quitting right away when he found out the job was not as promised."