As the human resource representative of the company, I received a detailed letter from the two of our former employees John Smith and Mark Koney about how the company is handling their retirement issue. The two feel discriminated and isolated and as they are no longer treated as people who were assets to the company. Mark Koney and John Smith worked for our company for a span of over 30 years and retired two years ago after attained the mandatory retirement age. Since leaving the company two years ago, they have not received any communication from the management regarding their retire packages and monthly pension.
The issue of concern is that indeed the two worked for our company diligently. John and Mark were dedicated employees for the 30 years they stayed at the company. They were among the senior employees of the company when they were leaving, and were well informed of the company details and procedures. They understood very well how the company handles retirement issues and expected the same to be done for them (Yamamoto, 2015, p.12). The issue of concern is that they have not been receiving the monthly pension since they retired from the company and the retirement package has not been forwarded to them. No official communication has been confirmed from the company over the same, and their plan is to take a legal action over the same. They have the intent of suing the company and have already approached the law firm in town.
The issue in question here is similar to the scenario in which former Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company employees were seeking millions of dollars as retirement benefits. The company employees lost their pension benefits, which they allege in the lawsuit, was because of poor decisions and inaction by the company top management. The lawsuit by the former Carolina Company employees argues that the top management was misguided and misled workers to vest their retirement benefits in the stock market, but eventually, the company's fortunes sank. The sinking of the company's market meant that the employees lost their retirement benefits which the company refused to award them (Buckley, 2015, p.29). This is similar to the John and Mark issue since it rotates around their retirement benefits and monthly compensation that our company has not submitted to then upon their retirement. In the lawsuit involving the Carolina Company, the judge argued that the employees were entitled to the retirement package and conflict of interest over their pension benefits should not have existed in the first instance (Buckley, 2015, p.57). The judge ruled that the company was wrong to withhold the employees retirement benefits just because its fortune had sunk and therefore the employees were entitled to their benefits in which way provided they worked Carolina Company.
In this scenario, if the two go ahead and sue the company then it is to be exposed that we do not take keen interests in the welfare of our employees. What is likely to happen if the two take the legal action is that the company is likely to overspend this financial year. The courts will inevitably rule in favor of John and Mark (Yamamoto, 2015, p.21). Notably, they are the entitlement to their retirement package and should not be discriminated in any way. Secondly, the company is likely to be over burden with the litigation fee for both its lawyers and those who are to represent John and Mark.
Reference
Buckley, J. F. (2015). Equal employment opportunity compliance guide 2016. S.l.: Wolters Kluwer Law & Bus.
Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (2006). Canadian pensions and retirement income planning. Toronto: CCH Canadian.
Yamamoto, D. H. (2015). Fundamentals of retiree group benefits.
