A new hire responded to an advertisement for a 12 month, 1.0 FTE fully benefited position with employment commencing July 1, 2014. (more) The candidate engaged in good faith in the screening process and was eventually offered the position, accepted the position quit employment at another University and moved across the country and started work on July 1. The contract they received after they arrived, however, was 9 months commencing September 16, with benefits commencing September 16, and a summer stipend with no benefits over the summer.
This is may have violated state law. ORS 659.815(1) provides:
No person, firm, company, corporation, or association of any kind employing labor, shall, either in person or through any agent, manager or other legal representatives, induce, influence, persuade or engage workers to change from one place to another in this state or bring workers of any class or calling into this state to work in any of the departments of labor by . . . Any false or deceptive representation or false advertising, concerning the amount or character of the compensation to be paid for any work . . . .
The new hire was forced to accept COBRA benefits from their former employer, which PSU agreed to reimburse. The new hire’s commencement of retirement benefits, however, was not resolved and will not be able to commence the waiting period for PERS until September 16.
This is not the first time that PSU presented an employment contract to a new hire that was substantively different than the job post, and substantively different than the verbal offer. In a notable previous occurrence:
- PSU advertised an academic professional position as .75 FTE and the annualized salary at 1.0 FTE. The letter of offer, however, was at a salary of .75 FTE, or 25% less than advertised. The letter of offer was presented after the new hire had resigned their previous position and accepted employment at PSU and represented a significant pay cut from previous employment. Despite what the LOA said and to make matters worse, PSU paid the new hire at the 1.0 rate for a full year before catching the error. They demanded repayment of the 25% immediately. PSU-AAUP was able to get the matter resolved so that the new hire did not have to repay the overpayment of wages, but the pay was reduced to the .75 FTE amount. This was a financial shock to the employee, who was a single mother. She struggled financially for several years until she was eventually able to get additional hours.