 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
970.) Gary, Indiana, is much closer geographically to Chicago than it is to Columbus, Ohio. Also, Steve Schlies was a PCDM in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. According to Mr. Insani, Mr. Schlies, who was living in Milwaukee or a surrounding area, would have had to move to the Gary, Indiana territory in order to cover it.
{ } Monte Hinchman, who became the district manager of the Chicago district on July 1, 1997, testified at trial. At the time he became the district manager, the Lake County territory was not part of that Chicago district. Mr. Hinchman testified that the Gary, Indiana territory was assigned to him around December 1997. When the Gary, Indiana territory was assigned to Mr. Hinchman, it consisted primarily of Lake County, Indiana, and Kankakee County, Illinois . Mr. Hinchman testified that the Lake County territory was not collapsed, but was a "viable, open territory." (Tr. 2284.) However, when Mr. Hinchman received the Lake County territory it was "vacant." (Tr. 2287.) Michelle Lynch, who was the sales representative that had covered the Lake County territory, transferred to a sales representative position in the territory that Mr. Hinchman had covered prior to his promotion to district manager.
{ } The PCDM position was eliminated in October 1997. However, the individuals who were formerly primary care district managers retained employment with Ross. According to the testimony of Mr. Insani, the decision to eliminate the primary care district manager's position and redeploy individuals was related to budgetary constraints. According to Mr. Lindberg, these individuals remained with Ross because they were "outstanding employees." (Tr. 1726.) The sales representatives that had been reporting to the PCDMs began reporting to the full-line district managers when the PCDM positions were eliminated. According to Mr. Lindberg, that was the practice prior to the creation of the PCDM positions.
{ } Testimony at trial supported the idea that when redeployment occurred, the preference was to reassign employees to their home area, that is, in the same region and same district. Mr. Insani testified that this was the preference because it supported consistency with the customers and would reduce relocation expenses, which Ross would pay. Mr. Insani added that " ometimes there is geography that is closer that is outside the region[.]" (Tr. 965.) On this issue, Mr. Insani further testified as follows:
Q: In doing redeployments you would always have a preference for moving someone to someplace that is closer rather than further away, wouldn't you?
A: If the closer territory had as much potential as the further away territory. Because the other thing you have to judge * * * is if you are given two cities, it is which one do I desperately need someone in. You weigh that, too.
Q: So, the needs of the territory would dictate somewhat.
A: Yes, needs, business needs, I guess you can call it, unless you have another term.
Q: When you talk about business needs, would you want to put your best salesman in the best territory or the worst territory?
A: That is really a judgment call.
Q: It is a tough question, isn't it?
A: Yes; it could go both ways. It depends on the personality of the salesperson, and the area that you are going to put him in.
Q: You certainly don't want to lose a good salesman by putting him in a rotten territory, do you?
A: Define "rotten," and I would say yes.
Q: A bad territory, or he is not going to make sales, or bonus and is going to be unhappy with his compensation .
A: You don't want to make him unhappy, no.<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|