Contract interpretation in workers compensation law

Legal

Win E. Lose should receive worker's compensation benefits for this particular scenario. The two parties are involved in a renewable seasonable contract. The most important aspect of this contract is that it is not 'seasonal,' but that it is 'seasonable.' Had the agreement been seasonal, it would have implied clear dates between employment and off periods. The 4 day difference would have excluded him from collecting worker's compensation benefits. Seasonable on the other hand represents a reasonable time. "The term seasonable is usually used in connection with the performance of contractual obligations that must be completed "seasonably." The facts and circumstances of each case define a reasonable period of time." (Answers.com) Because Mr. Lose was there in a work capacity, getting ready for the 3/1 start date and he was getting work related mail, the 4 days would constitute a reasonable period of time.

In this case, the city should pay the $9,877.89 if Stratton & Stricker can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 'other work' on 'this same project' was altered from the original contract specifications and was verbally approved of by Mr. Parker and then paid for by the city (or the same person who provided approval to the company's superintendent for those other changes, whether his name was Parker or not). Other than that, the contract should have specified a 'change to work process' that should have been followed by both parties. If there was a clause or process for changing the work and the city broke that trend first when Mr. Parker, if he was a legal representative of the company, okayed alterations to the contract specifications (with or without the knowledge of the city). Then the company should assume that the new policies would be the way (process) to alter all work in the future. but, the city should not pay the additional funds if there were no other changes to original contract specifications throughout the project that altered the agreement of the original contract and that the city paid the company for. If there were no other changes, then Mr. Parker's (or whatever his name could have been in the eyes of the company) okay would be irrelevant for the 30-inch curbs. The company should have either followed the specifications of the original contract or they should have followed whatever procedure that was in place stipulated by the contract to alter specifications. Clearing up who Mr. Parker was or was not is very important in this situation.

3. Mr. George should sue Corrigan first on the grounds that he was wrongfully terminated based on age discrimination. It seems pretty clear that the company released him solely to not pay him future entitlements. He should be considered to have been 'retired.' He never informed them that he intended to quit, he just left -- technically, according to the company Agent Manual, retirement was understood to be 'disengagement from the insurance industry.' By their standards, he therefore was retired and also met the vesting requirements because of the retired status. If his employment contract made 'at will' not a company option, they had no grounds to let him go. George may also win based on the fact of the unclear terminology and explanation of the multiple manuals. The grounds could be that the company made the documents purposefully vague in order to deceive employees.

The company has a good shot of winning for similar reasons. Based on the employment contract, was there an 'income producing' clause incorporated into the contract? If he was supposed to produce X amount to be employed, he certainly would not have met those expectations. There were other grounds that George abandoned his post and may have actually quit. Based on the fact of his abandonment and his no longer producing income for the company, they may have had a right to let him go. They could clearly demonstrate that he did not meet the requirements of the manuals and vesting schedule if he was legally terminated because he was not 65 and he had less than 10 years of service.

If I were the judge that heard this particular case, I would have to side against Corrigan and for Mr. George. Both parties could have done things better but in the end it looks like the company missed its contractual obligations in many more situations. My decision would mainly be based on the fact that the Corrigan company manuals were a mess. They were poorly written and simply not clear. I would have to assume that that was not actually an accident. I believe that the company was purposefully trying to deceive their employees. Secondly, it certainly appeared that Mr. George has a viable option of pursuing a wrongful termination complaint but as the judge I would not have an obligation of telling him that. Hopefully he would know to go to an attorney. The Corrigan Company seemed to release Mr. George simply to stop all future payments. They certainly would have a difficult time justifying their action considering their own manuals created a scenario that allowed Mr. George to be classified as retired.