 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. United Health Care Services10/31/2005
ctive March 1, 2002." It states that "Agreement to be bound by the Policy is a condition of employment . . . with UnitedHealth Group. The agreement between each individual employee and UnitedHealth Group to be bound by the Policy creates a contract requiring both parties to resolve all employment-related disputes that are based on a legal claim through final and binding arbitration." (Italics added.) The employee is required to sign the acknowledgement form that is included with and is specific to the Employment Arbitration Policy. The acknowledgement form states that the employee has been given "the attached copy" of the policy.
By its clear language, this March 1, 2002 Employment Arbitration Policy is intended to be a stand-alone agreement, discrete from any other agreements that UnitedHealth Group employees may be required to execute. It specifically characterizes itself as a "contract" between employee and UnitedHealth Group, and it requires an employee signature and date separate from any other employment documents the employee might be required to sign.
Furthermore, the March 1, 2002 "Employment Arbitration Policy" document expressly supersedes all prior versions of UnitedHealth Group's employment arbitration policies. But missing from the documents signed by each of the plaintiffs is proof the contracting parties agreed that the employer had the unilateral right to modify the contract in effect when plaintiffs signed the Code of Conduct Acknowledgement between 1996 and 2000 and by which they agreed to abide.
Appellant rejoins the employees were under a continuing obligation to keep abreast of changes in the Employment Arbitration Policy, as specified in paragraph D of exhibit one, the 2002 modification. We need not decide whether any such obligation can be imposed, because at a minimum appellant must prove the employees were provided copies of, or otherwise had access to the modified contract. Because the evidence in our record is undisputed that nine of the ten plaintiffs never executed the March 1, 2002 "Employment Arbitration Policy," or were provided copies of the document, these nine plaintiffs necessarily had not agreed to, nor are they bound by, its mandatory arbitration provision.
Absent a valid agreement to arbitrate, there was no basis to compel these nine plaintiffs to arbitrate. (See Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 413.) As discussed below, we conclude there is insufficient evidence that the tenth plaintiff, Mary Perryman, executed this policy either.
Plaintiff Perryman
The Supanich declaration in support of defendants' petition to compel arbitration with plaintiff Perryman included two single sheets of paper signed by Perryman on September 20, 2002. Supanich identified the two sheets collectively as "Exhibit 25."
The first sheet of paper is entitled "New Employee Orientation Training Acknowledgement Form." It states: "I understand the UnitedHealth Group New Employee Orientation contains important information regarding the general employment policies of UnitedHealth Group and its affiliated companies and subsidiaries and on my obligations as an employee. . . . By signing this form, I acknowledge that I attended [the orientation and] I agree to remain familiar with and to abide by these policies."
The second sheet of paper has no title or caption. It appears to be identical to the last page (page eight) of the March 1, 2002 "Employment Arbitration Policy." Page eight is the continuation of the boxed Employment Arbitration Policy acknowledgement form that begins at the bottom of page seven of the Employment Arbitration Policy. To reiterate, the final sentence of the acknowledgement form on p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|