BNA - Guild News

Oct. 12, 2000

The Guild: Protecting Your Job Security

BNA to Employees: Warning, Taking This Promotion Could Cost You Your Job!

The Issue:
A successful bidder's right to retreat to their old job if they fail probation, and contract language which dates back over 22 years:

Article XX Job Openings and Advancement
" A successful job bidder shall be deemed to be in a probationary status for a period not to exceed three months, and shall be so notified at the time of commencing his new employment….If within the three-month period the Publisher determines that the successful bidder is not able to perform the required job duties, the employee shall be returned without prejudice to his former job."

The Problem:
BNA's odd interpretation of employee rights under the contract took another bizarre turn last week when BNA-in a one-two punch to a 14-½ year, 2nd generation G-4 BNA employee -- told her that she had failed her promotional probationary period in her new job AND that BNA had abolished her previous job (the work didn't actually go away-much of it was distributed to other employees). BNA handed this stunned employee a RIF notice, effective December 1.

BNA's Position:
BNA had "hoped", its HR spokesman said, that she would not fail probation. But since she did fail, well, not to worry-she'll get 56 weeks of severance pay, and she can bid on jobs in the meanwhile.

Sort of a crap shoot approach to job security.

The company isn't reluctant to let her endure the stress of the RIF process, her worry about her economic security and her future. Maybe, BNA hopes, she'll successfully bid on another position, and maybe, the company hopes, she'll be back on the job with no hard feelings. After all, a RIF is no big deal, right (not even on in the midst of the holiday season, and not even when the timing denies the employee profit sharing, since she won't be on the payroll on 12/31). Maybe the company also hopes that yet another older worker will be able to find employment after BNA discards them.

The Guild's Position:
Look at the language!

What part of "shall" does BNA not understand? The language is clear. The employee shall be returned without prejudice (with no stain on her record) to her former job.

This language allows employees to bid on new positions without the fear of being terminated to the street. An employee who promotes from within can try out a new job knowing that if he or she can't cut it during probation, the old job is there to retreat to. In contrast, a new hire from off the street who fails probation has no retreat rights. The word shall does create an obligation for BNA to keep the old job available at least during the probation period in a new job, in case probation is failed.

BNA wants the right to strip you of your retreat rights when you successfully bid on a new position! BNA says this situation is unique ... that, of course BNA wouldn't abolish your old job out from under you.

But, in fact, BNA created this "unique" situation by redistributing an employee's job duties and choosing to abolish her job during her probation in her new position. BNA can create this "unique" scenario whenever they feel like it.

Can't We All Just Get Along?
We'd like nothing better. The Guild offered BNA a proposal to keep the employee at the same or similar job, with neither party conceding its position about the meaning of the contract. If this situation is unique, what's the problem with such an agreement? The Guild doesn't want yet another older worker on the street, wondering why BNA dumped them. That leads-historically-we're not making this up-to costly litigation that comes right out of BNA employee's profit sharing.

BNA has rejected this compromise, sadly, and is choosing to make job security for promoted employees a bone of contention. The Guild is filing a grievance on the matter.

Guild to BNA: You don't promote employee satisfaction and company loyalty like this. Try another approach.