Thread regarding Anadarko Petroleum Corp. layoffs

Salary reduction but doesn't qualify for COC?

Having trouble understanding how the salaries can be reduced and according to OXY doesn't qualify for COC?

by
| 3045 views | | 18 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+149OaaNi

18 replies (most recent on top)

@evnk+149OaaNi
If you are looking for law firms to help you out, the best approach will be to contact APC personnel that has left the company with VSP and ask for references. A good number of us (everyone that I know) had lawyers, but it will not be appropriate to list names in this board. It came down to 2-3 firms by the way.

An alternative will be an internet search for your area with terms such as COC, employment law and see the results and credentials of any firms that may come up.

by
|
Post ID: @urgz+149OaaNi

Yeah, go ahead and file some complaints...there won't be a job for you after your protection runs out.

by
|
Post ID: @szpl+149OaaNi

Not that you would need it, but I am not so sure a COC would allow you to apply for unemployment under the current environment. If you get laid off you should be able to file for unemployment and the other government Covid-19 responses. If you initiate the COC it might be viewed as you quitting your job and TEC will deny that. I think the same goes for the people who took the VSP.

by
|
Post ID: @ehov+149OaaNi

Any particular law firms recommended?

by
|
Post ID: @evnk+149OaaNi

HR informant says they have had people file and get accepted on a case by case basis about salary reduction.

Defining "material" has been the key.

by
|
Post ID: @ekmm+149OaaNi

DOL said companies can reduce cost for COVID 19 reasons. Hawaiian shirt dudes email has them covered by mentioning the beer virus. No chance for COC you cool cats and kittens

by
|
Post ID: @9omx+149OaaNi

@7wce+149OaaNi Discrimination against >40??? It's not even available to under 40. It's voluntary. Am I missing something?

by
|
Post ID: @7mxw+149OaaNi

If you are LAPC waiting on your VSP date you would be over 40, a protected class. THE pay reduction drops the payout. Haven’t done the math but that’s pretty material to me. Seems like they reduced pay to reduce vsp payout too. Why is this not discrimination against 40+?

by
|
Post ID: @7wce+149OaaNi

The Plan Administrator’s position that 5% as a firm value is the line between material and immaterial is not supported by historic legal or accounting rulings or positions. Per the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 99 which contemplates materiality, the Financial Accounting Standards Board rejects a formulaic approach to defining materiality and advises that all circumstances must be considered.
While the SEC and the FASB positions are regarding corporations, not individuals, the concept translates.
Per the SEC, “exclusive reliance ..… on any percentage or numerical threshold has no basis in the accounting literature or the law.”

  1. 9% is extremely material to a household budget. here are some examples of what the net effect equates to:
  2. home and auto insurance combined
  3. 20% of childcare costs
  4. > 100% of household gasoline cost

SEC: “A matter is "material" if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important.”
Without question, a reasonable person would consider important having to make a choice between gasoline, insurance, or childcare. Moreover, 4.9% may be the difference between a household running at a net profit (accruing savings) vs. a net loss (accruing debt) which is extremely material to that household.

by
|
Post ID: @6uil+149OaaNi

@bwl+149OaaNi No. There is no law stating that people performing the same job cannot be paid differently UNLESS the difference is due to a protected class such as race, s-x, age etc. Assuming the gender/racial/age makeup of L-OXY and L-APC are similar (which they likely are), they can pay one group a lot more with no issues legally.

Filing a Class Action on 4.9% being a material change might get you somewhere. Filing a discrimination suit will get thrown out instantly.

by
|
Post ID: @5afc+149OaaNi

Job history isn't a protected class lol

by
|
Post ID: @2klu+149OaaNi

Discrimination? Didn’t know LAPC was a protected class.

by
|
Post ID: @1dlb+149OaaNi

Take a look at the merger agreement. They have everyone looking at the CoC, but salaries are mentioned in the merger agreement as well.

by
|
Post ID: @msd+149OaaNi

Another route on the legal side would be a lawsuit for discrimination. Clearly LOXY is cut 30% LAPC is cut 4.9% the only difference being former company affiliation. In book book clearly discriminatory in violation of federal employment laws. That pulls LOXY into the fray. It puts 31 in a really bad spot to choose to either walk back LOXY cuts or extend the same cuts to LAPC, which in turn triggers COC. Win-Win

by
|
Post ID: @bwl+149OaaNi

It’s a gray area. You guys should band together and submit a class action COC. They think something less than 5% is not material but something 5% or greater is material. If you make $50,000 and they reduce you by 4.9% that would be a reduction of $2,450 (not material). If they reduce you at 5% it would be a reduction of $2,500 (material)...a difference of $50. That’s BS.

by
|
Post ID: @xjs+149OaaNi

Can you define material?

by
|
Post ID: @tzg+149OaaNi

Because it’s not material.

by
|
Post ID: @wtq+149OaaNi

Let’s band together and get some actual legal minds on this. Maybe we could be recognized as a class. Also I’m guessing since LOXY are getting cut 30% this is clear discrimination LOXY vs LAPC.

by
|
Post ID: @hsy+149OaaNi

Post a reply

: