Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ADAMO v. ANCHOR HOCKING CORP.

July 27, 1989

RICHARD A. ADAMO, JOHN D. SUBASIC, THOMAS ROSS and BRIAN F. HANLON, Plaintiffs,
v.
ANCHOR HOCKING CORPORATION, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SMITH

 This matter is before the Court for decision following a non-jury proceeding commenced on May 17, 1989. *fn1" In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) we enter the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

 Findings of Fact

 1. Plaintiffs, Richard A. Adamo (Adamo), John D. Subasic (Subasic), Thomas Ross (Ross), and Brian F. Hanlon (Hanlon) were employees of Anchor Hocking Corporation's Shenango China Division in New Castle, Pennsylvania. (Stipulation of fact para. 1, 5, 9, 13).

 2. Adamo was employed by Anchor Hocking at its New Castle plant from April 16, 1956, to September 19, 1985. (Stipulation of fact para. 1).

 3. During the last five years of his employment with Anchor Hocking, Adamo served as maintenance foreman. From February to April 1985, Adamo was acting maintenance superintendent. (Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi).

 4. Adamo resumed his maintenance foreman position in May 1985 when Robert Sinibaldi assumed the maintenance superintendent position. (Testimony of Sinibaldi).

 5. After Sinibaldi assumed the maintenance superintendent position, Adamo was bitter and resentful that he did not receive this position and exhibited the same to superintendent Sinibaldi. (Testimony of Sinibaldi).

 6. Adamo's actions included violating plant rules on numerous occasions. This included, most notably, leaving the plant without informing others of his departure. This behavior occurred at least 10 times prior to June 5, 1985. (Exhibit B, Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi).

 7. Adamo also violated the plant rule requiring him to sign visitors in and out of the plant. (Exhibit B, testimony of Sinibaldi).

 8. Adamo also violated the plant rule requiring hourly employees to punch in and out when leaving the plant. This violation occurred on Saturday, May 18, 1985, when Adamo took hourly employee, Edgar Hill, an electrician, out of the plant. This instance violated company rules despite the fact that it was for a business purpose, in that hourly employees for insurance reasons, must still punch in and punch out when leaving on company business. (Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi).

 9. The above violations culminated in a written reprimand by Adamo's supervisor, maintenance superintendent Sinibaldi. This reprimand was shown to Adamo and he was placed on probation from June 5, 1985, until December 31, 1985. (Exhibit B, testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi).

 10. At the time of Adamo's reprimand, Sinibaldi informed Adamo that he had an "attitude problem." Previously, in an appraisal performance done February 1985 by Sinibaldi, Adamo's attitude had been noted as "questionable". (Exhibit 3, B; Testimony of Sinibaldi).

 11. Adamo also failed to fulfill his duties as maintenance foreman. This position required that the maintenance foreman be available at all times on weekend duty to handle problems occurring with plant equipment. Adamo, however, failed to comply with this requirement and on Sunday, July 28, 1985, he left the plant from 8:50 A. M. until 1:10 P. M. At that time, a kiln broke down and no maintenance individual was available to take charge of the problem or direct its repair. This incident resulted in a loss of both company hours of production and ware. (Exhibit F, Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi, Mills).

 12. Adamo was also absent on Sunday, August 4, 1985, having left the plant at 11:30 A. M., and failing to return. Although there were no breakdowns of equipment at that time, this behavior failed to meet the standards of a maintenance foreman on duty for a Saturday/Sunday. (Exhibit F; Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi, Mills).

 14. On September 19, 1985, Adamo was terminated by Mr. Mills in the presence of Sinibaldi. Adamo was informed at that time that his discharge was for cause. An effort was made by Mills and Sinibaldi to discuss the reasons for Adamo's discharge; however, Adamo made it clear that he did not want to talk about it at that time and would prefer a meeting in the future. That meeting was never held. (Testimony of Adamo, Sinibaldi, Mills).

 15. Adamo was discharged for cause, that is, repeated violations of company rules, and his inability to fulfill the duties required of a maintenance foreman. (Testimony of Sinibaldi).

 16. Adamo was denied severance benefits because his discharge was for cause. (Testimony of Dawson).

 17. Adamo was not entitled to receive severance pay pursuant to policy 2-10-1, Severance, Layoff, and Recall Procedure for salaried employees. (Testimony of Dawson; Exhibit 1, M).

 18. Subasic was employed by Anchor Hocking from August 21, 1978, to January 21, 1986. (Stipulation of fact 5).

 19. Subasic's position in the maintenance department was as planner/scheduler. This position was assumed by Sinibaldi because of the implementation of cost cutting measures. Subasic was then assigned to the position of Maintenance Stock Room Clerk. (Testimony of Subasic, Sinibaldi).

 20. In May 1985, a computer was put in the maintenance stock room in conjunction with the initiation of the GUTS Program. This GUTS Program was a preventive maintenance program designed to eliminate costs associated with the breakdown of plant machinery. (Testimony of Subasic). The GUTS Program was a critical component of Anchor Hocking's efforts to streamline operations and to trim costs. (Testimony of Mills).

 21. Subasic's duties required his participation in imputing data into the GUTS program. Subasic did not receive formal training regarding this duty. (Testimony of Subasic).

 22. Subasic did his best to learn and adapt to the GUTS Program. Subasic's efforts in this area did not meet management expectations. Management's dissatisfaction with Subasic's performance, however, was not effectively communicated to him, but rather to his superiors. Management believed that Subasic had the capability to master the GUTS program, but that he lacked the initiative. (Testimony of Subasic, Sinibaldi, Mills).

 23. In an effort to enhance Subasic's ability to master the duties associated with the GUTS program, his duties were streamlined so that he could spend greater time on the computer. Despite this rearrangement of his duties, Subasic still failed to meet management's expectations. (Testimony of Sinibaldi, Mills).

 24. Subasic was discharged because his performance with regard to inputting data into the GUTS Program indicated that he was unable to master the duties required of his position. (Testimony of Mills).

 25. Subasic was denied severance benefits because his discharge was due to his lack of initiative to master the duties required by his position and his poor job performance. (Testimony of Mills, Sinibaldi).

 26. Ross was employed by the defendant from June 24, 1974, to January 21, 1986. (Stipulation of fact 9).

 27. In October 1985, Ross was transferred from his position as head foreman of the clay forming department to foreman of the underglazing decorating department. This transfer was due to the layoffs of October 1985. (Testimony of Mills) Ross was retained and transferred to the underglazing decorating department because Ross had strong leadership skills. (Exhibit 16).

 28. Ross' transfer was technically a demotion. The company requested that Ross continue to receive the same pay, however, and that he not be demoted on the books. (Exhibit 16).

 29. Ross' performance in his former department had been highly commendable. Ross' experience was sought out by his former department while he was in the underglazing department. This necessitated his assisting his former department at times. These temporary absences from his department were approved by his superior Mazzocco, the superintendent of the decorating department. (Testimony of Ross).

 30. Ross' performance in the underglazing department necessitated his implementing a new Shop Floor Reporting Program into the normal operations of the department. This system was designed to cut costs and was a critical component of Anchor Hocking's overall ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.