Skip navigation

The history of my employment with Serco.  This is also known as the facts of the case.

 These are the facts that document my history with Serco.  In other posts you will see my legal argument.
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

On February 3, 2011, SERCO offered Mr. McMasters full-time employment. The offer was made via a letter from Chris Sacksteder, SERCO HR Leader, to Mr. McMasters. (Summary of Docket No 28, Exhibit. 10) In relevant part, the letter states in the first paragraph;
 "Your duties will be those of an Acquisition Management Specialist IV/T10 (Sr. Acquisition Analyst, Labor Category) on the MC/HC 130 task located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.  Mr. John Hix will be your supervisor.  Your bi-weekly pay rate will be $3,807.06, which would be $99,000.00 annually."   
 
and in a subsequent paragraph; 
 
               "Your hiring is subject to your review and understanding of, and agreement to adhere to, the policies and practices of SERCO, and the employment relationship is based on the mutual consent of the employee and SERCO. Accordingly, this relationship is at will, and either you or the company can terminate this relationship, with or without cause or advance notice, at any time. Neither this letter nor any other oral or written representations may be considered a contract for any specific period of time" (Summary of Docket No 28, Ex. 10)
 
An explicit definition of "at will" is found in Serco Policy HR-8 Employment at Will. (Exhibit 6).

Mr. McMasters and Serco entered into an at-will contractual relationship in Feb 2011 and continued that relationship making adjustments to the original at-will contract through mutual consent.  When Serco began working on the follow on contract with the government, in anticipation of future salary negotiations Mr. McMasters sent a Nov 2012 email: 

               "Elie, When constructing your bid for the follow-on contract to the position I currently hold, if you bid this position at a cost that would not support Serco paying at least 98% of my current salary and benefits, it would be dishonest of Serco and Sumaria to use my resume and experience to support the Sumaria / Serco bid."  (Exhibit 12)
 
In Feb 2013, by mutual agreement, Serco and Mr. McMasters decided that in order to allow more time to negotiate new terms, they would continue their relationship under ACCESS with the same terms as the previous government contract.   (Exhibit. No 93). On April 16, 2013 Mr. McMasters recorded a history of the contract negotiations;

             " ...the week of April 1st 2013, Elie came by the office and we had a conversation in a conference room about the proposed salary restructuring.  When he mentioned the salary Serco proposed I immediately stopped the conversation about pay and benefits.  I told him I would not be working (sic) for Serco at that salary.  I redirected the conversation and asked how Serco would initiate termination procedures.  He told me that Serco’s position was that if I rejected the offer then Serco would consider it to be a voluntary separation.  I told him that Serco was responsible for initiating the termination of our agreement.  He asked me if I intended to keep working for Serco.  I told him I would continue working as long as I was receiving my current pay[1]."  (Exhibit 25 {P3})
 
" ...the week of April 1st or April 8th 2013, Elie came by my desk and told me HR had determined that the new pay structure would go into place April 13, 2013 and if I did not like it then I would have to resign.  I told Elie I would not agree to the proposed pay structure and Serco would continue to pay my current salary until they terminated our agreement and initiated the out processing.  I instructed him to make sure HR was aware they were not authorized to change my pay without my permission.  He told me this was a HR decision and that he had no power to tell them (anything)." (Exhibit 25 {P2})
 
"On or about 12 April 2013 Elie came by my desk to discuss an upcoming business trip.  During that conversation I initiated a discussion about the topic of my pay this week and beyond.  I re-emphasized it was my expectation to be paid at the same rate in the upcoming weeks and beyond as I had been paid up until this conversation.  I specifically asked him if he had conveyed my position to HR.  He told me he had constructed and sent an email that stated that I rejected the compensation rate he proposed and that I expected to be paid at my current salary.  I told him I was surprised neither he nor any other Serco representative initiated any further conversation about the subject since our last conversation.  He  shrugged his shoulders and stated he sent the email, everyone was aware of my position and it was up to “them” to do something.  During that conversation I attempted to “partner” with Serco on this subject and inquired about the possible benefit Serco or I might gain if I were to resign instead of Serco terminating our arrangement.    He had no response."  (Exhibit 25 {P1})
 
Mr. Green memorialized this time period in Exhibit 105 Bullets 4 and 6;

          No one readily accepted that action, but out of the 16 employees affected, all excepted (sic),with the exception of Mr. McMasters and Mr. Rovinsky and Mr. Wedel (both Mr. Rovinsky and Mr. Wedel elected to resign).
 
          Mr. McMasters referred to his original offer letter where his salary was $90K and stated that Serco had no right to decrease his salary without his consent, and he did not agree to the change. He said that since he did not agree, Serco should Involuntarily terminate him.
 
On April 13, 2013 an impasse occurred during salary negotiations, prompting Serco to unilaterally change the salary term of the contract without Mr. McMasters' agreement.  On or about May 6, 2013 Mr. McMasters received a deposit and pay statement that was not consistent with the contracted salary.  Mr. McMasters informed Serco of the pay discrepancy in a May 6, 2013 email:

Elie Green et al, 
The deposit received at my bank from Serco this past week does not fulfill SERCO's obligations as they relate to my salary. Looking at the pay statement on ADP, it looks like SERCO has implemented a salary at or near the one Elie relayed was proposed by Serco a few weeks ago and I rejected immediately.
 
Please correct the ADP pay statement to reflect the same salary as the pay period ending 2/15/2013 which shows the latest salary mutually agreed to by both Serco and me. Additionally, please ensure either immediate deposit of the remaining salary owed or provide the correction plan showing a reasonable schedule as to when this will occur.
 
 and on May 10, 2013 a teleconference was held with representatives for Serco's Human Relations department.  The best summation of our negotiating positions is capture within a May 10, 2013 email from Mr. McMasters. 
Sir,
 
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me concerning the issue of my salary,  If accurate, I appreciate your confirming this basic summary of our conversation.
 
1. Serco HR's position is that the company can unilaterally change my salary at any time.
 
2.  My position is that the salary I work for was initially negotiated and determined by mutual agreement and any changes also require mutual agreement.
 
Thank you for your confirmation of this summary or if necessary clarification of the Serco position (Exhibit 35)
 
       May 16, 2013 Mr. Frank Lindell finally put in writing Serco's intention to reduce Mr. McMasters salary.  Mr. McMasters responded with a letter rejecting that $57,000 a year salary and asserting his right to the $99,923 negotiated salary;

Dear Mr. Lindell:
 
Per the conversation I had with Elie Green on March 27, 2013, I reject the
change in compensation Serco proposed and then unilaterally enacted April
13, 2013. I appreciate that you have put the proposed change in writing. Let
this letter reflect that I also reject Serco's letter, dated 5-16-13 and signed by
you, that seeks a unilaterally imposed salary change and that I expect Serco
to pay back wages and future earnings so that they equal the earnings rate
of the pay period ending 2/15/2013.
 
I spoke to Mr. Gatanas personally on this issue and your subsequent letter
has convinced me that it is unlikely I alone will be able to convince Serco to
fulfill its obligations under the terms of our agreement, therefore, I have
asked my attorney Mr. Frank Payson to engage Serco on my behalf. I
appreciate your attention to ensuring his communications are directed to the
appropriate Serco representative.
 
Monday May 20, 2013 I will report to work at my normal work place at Wright
Patterson. It is my expectation to be compensated at the last mutually
agreed to salary.             (Exhibit 42)
 
Serco continued to track Mr. McMasters as not agreeing to the salary change on internal documents at least through 3/28/2014 (McMasters Second Affidavit).  Mr. McMasters worked in a deferred salary status until January 20, 2015[2]
 
[1] Note: This statement infers nothing about what course of action I would take at the manifestation of the dispute. The next paragraphs which were written at the same time as this paragraph are clear about my intentions.  As are the statements by Mr. Green who independently recorded the same incidents a month later.
[2] Within the statement of facts of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are references that make it appear as if I asserted I had a three year contract with Serco.  I have never made that assertion nor have I made an assertion I had any kind of contract that specified a specific time period.  At all times I recognized that at any time the contract could be terminated by either party for any reason not prohibited by law.  The quotes used by the lower courts, especially in the trial court's discussion, are truncated and don't show I was referencing the contract between Serco and the Government in my evaluation of the likelihood of continued employment.  The contention I asserted I had a 3 year contract is a red herring presented by Serco in their briefs that led the lower courts away from addressing the actual issues.  I assert I had a negotiated binding contract that could have been terminated any time by either party but wasn't terminated by either.

Rating

Unrated
Rating:
Edited