 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pulcino v. Federal Express Corp.3/1/1999
pany. Pulcino alleges that Woods did not inform her of a single job within commuting distance and that workers could submit job change applications only through their LOA managers. At the end of 90 days, Pulcino was terminated.
In August 1994, Pulcino filed a complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court alleging union discrimination, disability discrimination, and breach of promises contained in FedEx's employee handbooks. At trial, the court precluded Pulcino from referring to any evidence that preceded her employment as a handler and excluded all evidence of a corporate policy of anti-unionism, regardless of the timing. The court also granted FedEx's motion to dismiss Pulcino's disability discrimination and breach of implied employment contract claims and limited her union discrimination claim to wrongful discharge. At the close of Pulcino's case, the trial court granted FedEx's motion for a directed verdict. Pulcino filed a motion for a new trial and reconsideration, but the motion was denied. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
1. Union Discrimination Claim
At the close of Pulcino's case on her union discrimination claim, FedEx moved for a directed verdict under Civil Rule 50(a), arguing that there was insufficient evidence for any reasonable jury to rule in Pulcino's favor. The trial court granted the motion, finding that "there was no adverse action ever taken against Plaintiff and the procedures followed by Federal Express were appropriate." On appeal, Pulcino claims she was denied a fair trial on this claim because the trial court 1) limited her claim to wrongful termination, 2) excluded relevant evidence, 3) denied discovery of documents regarding union organizing, 4) failed to interpret reasonable inferences in her favor, and 5) refused to grant a new trial despite erroneous evidentiary rulings and FedEx's abuse of discovery. She asks this court to reinstate her claim for union discrimination in its entirety and grant Judgement to her as a matter of law on her reinstated claim because "it is undisputed that FedEx excluded Gross and the other FAs from accessing information regarding job openings purely based on their union affiliation."
a. Limitation to Wrongful Termination
Pulcino contends that because the trial court limited her union discrimination claim to wrongful discharge, she was not permitted to show that she was subjected to different terms and conditions solely due to her union affiliation. In particular, she would have shown how FedEx refused to recognize her and the other FAs as employees, and excluded them, the only remaining unionized group within FedEx, from access to job listings. Pulcino relies on the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Bravo v. Dolsen Companies for her argument that RCW 49.32.020 prohibits all forms of employer interference with organized workers. FedEx counters that in White v. State, the Supreme Court limited public policy employment claims to wrongful discharge. Resolution of this issue requires examination of how the tort of wrongful discharge intersects with RCW 49.32.020, the public policy statute prohibiting employer coercion, interference, and restraint with labor organizing.
In Krystad v. Lau, the Washington Supreme Court decided the issue of whether RCW 49.32.020 confers substantive rights or is merely a declaration of policy. The statute provides:
49.32.020 Policy enunciated. . . . The public policy of the state of Washington is hereby declared as follows: WHEREAS, Under prevailing economic conditions . . . the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor . . . where
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|