Originally Posted by
Slasher1
I don't doubt that's their intent, but the contract is clear. And that's what a contract is for.
The only sticking point might be one of enforceability. There are jurisdictions where the provision is completely enforceable -- to the point of both grievance and court if violated -- and in some of these the company winds up paying for a large chunk of the process. But it's not esoteric BS; it's about as clear cut as it gets (and you can't close down an operation to evade your legitimate contractural responsibilities--not only is it illegal but you are usually found out and all of the inter-office comms get subpoenaed). And there are jurisdictions where enforcing it might be dodgy.
The company could avoid this by voluntary separations at the upper ends but will have to pay for it. Effectively paying for seniority invested and the contract they agreed. At the end of the day this might be a wise business decision and cheaper all around for everyone. What would NOT be wise is an attempt to end-run the contract and shenanigans because no matter who or what you are this tends to come back at a person.
At least somebody gets it... No doubt this isn’t his first time around the pattern.