Opinion ID: 527007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right To Be Considered for Rehire.

Text: 4 In 1982, demand for domestic automobiles began to slump, resulting in planned layoffs at the Packard Electric plant (the plant). A committee comprised of both union and management created the Voluntary Termination of Employment Plan (the VTEP), offering severance pay, either in lump-sum or two-year-installment payments, to those who agreed to resign. This much the parties agree upon; they differ with respect to GM's position concerning the future employment eligibility of those who opted for the VTEP. 5 GM's version of the facts contradicts that of the plaintiffs and their union in every important respect. GM contends that the parties raised the issue of rehire rights in bargaining over the VTEP and that GM officials specifically told union representatives that employees opting for VTEP would not be eligible for rehire. Plaintiffs and their union claim that the representatives asked about future eligibility and were told that would be no problem. GM alleges that during collective bargaining over the plan's details, management negotiators told union negotiators that employees who accepted plan benefits would not be eligible for rehire. GM further contends that when its officials presented the plan to the employees, they told the employees that those accepting plan benefits would be ineligible for rehire. Lastly, GM reads the VTEP itself as vague and ambiguous on the issue of employee eligibility for rehire. 6 Plaintiffs would explain the differing factual accounts as a semantic miscue: GM's references were to rehire rights, a term of art as between the parties that denotes those rights held by laid-off employees under the general collective bargaining agreement. Such rehire rights would include the rights of laid-off employees to be called back in a certain priority, to have their seniority and benefits reinstated, to work at a particular wage level, and so forth. In contrast, plaintiffs assert that the issue of future employment eligibility was independent of the discussion of rehire rights, concerned only the potential for those who opted for VTEP of ever being GM employees again, and was not the subject of collective bargaining. 7 Plaintiffs, who are thirty-two former GM employees who opted for VTEP, brought independent actions in federal district court, premising jurisdiction upon diversity and alleging (1) that GM, when presenting the VTEP to employees, offered false inducements to employees to opt for the VTEP, in the form of promises concerning future employment eligibility; (2) that GM knew these inducements and representations were false; (3) that plaintiffs relied upon these representations in accepting the plan; and (4) that plaintiffs were injured as a result of this reliance. 8