 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kerschion v. Public Service Company of New Mexico3/4/2002
Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) appeals from the trial court's $31,000 judgment in Appellee Richard Kerschion's favor. Kerschion claimed that PNM, by its representatives, negligently misrepresented the terms of a severance package offered to him as an incentive to leave PNM's employ, and in addition, breached contract terms, inflicted emotional distress, and committed a prima facie tort. PNM maintained that Kerschion was entitled only to the standard retirement plan, rather than severance pay and the special enhancement, because he failed to comply with the terms of the union-negotiated severance package offered to all employees. We hold that Kerschion's state law claims are preempted by federal labor law, and the district court erred in failing to dismiss them.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Kerschion worked for PNM at the San Juan Generating Station, and was a member and former steward of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 611 (Union). The Union had negotiated a series of collective-bargaining agreements that governed the terms and conditions of the employment of PNM employees, including Kerschion. In 1996, PNM determined that due to systemic changes, the San Juan Generating Station would require fewer employees in coming years. In order to smoothly effectuate the reduction in force, PNM and the Union came to a Mutual Agreement, which the Union ultimately ratified by vote. The Mutual Agreement provided a $5000 enhancement to the Collective Bargaining Agreement's severance package for employees who volunteered for layoff within a particular window of time. Kerschion himself voted in favor of the Mutual Agreement.
Specifically, the Mutual Agreement guaranteed that employees would receive notice ninety days before the layoff date, which would fall sometime after June 1, 1998. It also required that employees sign a release of claims against PNM. The severance package would be payable upon layoff. In February 1997, Kerschion signed a declaration of intent to participate in the layoff program and sign the release. Subsequently, Kerschion became concerned that signing the release would prevent him from collecting on a pending workers' compensation claim. He wrote a letter to a PNM representative dated April 8, 1997, requesting clarification. It is not clear from the record whether the release would have affected Kerschion's workers' compensation benefits, but the PNM representative reassured Kerschion by adding language to the Release Agreement that purported to insure that Kerschion would not be waiving any workers' compensation claim by signing the agreement. However, the new language mistakenly was added to a prior, rejected version of the Release Agreement that contained a blank space for the termination date. Kerschion asked what he should write in that space and erroneously was told to insert "today's date," or April 10, 1997.
Four days later, PNM realized its error and presented Kerschion with a corrected Release Agreement, in conformance with the version negotiated and settled upon by the Union and management. A Union representative told Kerschion that the document he had signed was not a legal document because it was not what the Union had agreed would be signed by all employees. Both PNM and the Union told Kerschion that he had to sign the corrected agreement in order to receive the severance money. Kerschion refused, and let lapse the forty-five day period allowed for signing to lapse. As a result, PNM told him that he was not entitled to any severance. Kerschion filed a grievance asserting PNM failed to comply with the rejected version of the Release Agreement and asserting PNM violated the severan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|