FINDERS, NOT KEEPERS
While
installing a new driveway for a customer, the owner of a paving company
and his employee unearthed a glass jar containing rolls of gold coins
wrapped in paper. They collected, cleaned, and inventoried the gold
pieces. The coins were worth many thousands of dollars.
At first,
the finders agreed to split the coins between themselves, with the
company owner retaining possession. After the two had a falling out
over ownership of the coins, the company owner gave them to the
customer on whose land they were found. The other finder then sued for
possession of the coins.
The finder
of the coins argued that under the "treasure trove" doctrine he should
have the right to possess the found property against the entire world,
except the rightful owner, regardless of where the property was found.
The state court reviewed the law on found property and held that the
landowner was entitled to possession of the coins, to the exclusion of
all but the true owner.
The
doctrine of treasure trove, and its use of a "finders keepers" rule,
had never been adopted in the state where the coins were found. Even if
it were otherwise, the court was ready to discard the rule as
antiquated and unfair. The doctrine encourages trespassers to roam at
large over the property of others in search of hidden treasure,
contrary to the reasonable expectations of modern-day
landowners.
NEW RIGHT FOR WORKERS AT
DISCIPLINARY MEETINGS
Two employees
at a foundation wrote office memoranda stating that their supervisor
was not needed on a project and that he had behaved inappropriately and
unprofessionally. The foundation's executive director informed one of
the employees that she wanted to meet with him and the supervisor.
Feeling intimidated at the prospect of the meeting, the employee asked
that his fellow complaining employee be present as well. When this
request was refused, and the employee declined to attend the meeting
alone, he was fired for insubordination.
The fired
employee ultimately was found to be entitled to reinstatement to his
position, with an award of back pay. The decision by a federal
appellate court breaks new ground for non-union employees and
employers, because the basis for the ruling is a principle previously
associated only with union workers. It is settled law that an employer
commits an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act
if it denies a union employee's request to have a union representative
present at an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably
believes might result in disciplinary action.
The
National Labor Relations Board has changed course several times on the
question of whether this right also can be asserted by employees who
are not in unions. In the case of the foundation employee, it answered
that question in the affirmative, and the appeals court
agreed.
The impact
of the decision could well mean that in most cases a company should
either allow an employee to have a co-worker present at a meeting that
could be perceived as leading to disciplinary action or not have the
meeting at all.
The right
to have a co-worker present must be triggered by a request from the
employee. Many employees, especially those not in a union, are unaware
of this right and are unlikely to assert it. Managers and supervisors
do not benefit from the ruling, as they are not "employees" as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act. Non-union employees probably can
only insist on being accompanied by a co-worker, rather than having a
supervisor, manager, or outside representative present. The purpose of
the right is to allow employees to engage in "mutual aid and
protection." The rule applies only to a meeting that could lead to
discipline, not a meeting whose purpose is simply to announce
predetermined disciplinary action.
A MATTER OF OPINION
In a recent
case, a claim of defamation was brought against the writer of a letter
to the editor in a small-town newspaper. A news article in the paper
reported on the upcoming closing of a downtown grocery that had been in
business for 50 years. Three days later, the newspaper printed a letter
to the editor that blamed the closing of the grocery store on the
store's landlord. Calling him a "ruthless speculator," among other
things, the writer accused the landlord of forcing the store out of
business by charging "exorbitant rent." The letter stated that the
landlord's "self-centered greed" caused the demise of the
grocery.
The
landlord responded to the letter to the editor with a defamation action
against its author. The lawsuit was dismissed because the state
constitution's free expression clause shielded the letter writer from
liability. To distinguish between statements of opinion, which are
protected, and assertions of fact, which are not, the court looked at
all the surrounding circumstances. In each instance, the offending
parts of the letter were found to be opinions. The context of the
letter as a whole showed it to be an exercise in venting frustrations
and opinions about the loss of a valued downtown business. Finally, the
fact that the letter was an expression of protected opinion was
confirmed by its very location in the newspaper's opinion pages, a
traditional forum for the robust exchange of viewpoints.
FIRM NEWS
Linda
Alderman Appointed To Conservation & Environment Commission of West
Hartford. This appointment will allow her to apply her 15 years'
experience as an environmental attorney to help her friends and
neighbors. Linda can be e-mailed at lalderman@alderman.com.
Myles
Alderman Teaches Creditors' Rights Under Revised Article 9. Mr.
Alderman explored remedies and bankruptcy law issues under revised
Article 9 at a seminar sponsored by Lorman Education Services on
February 19, 2002. Myles can be e-mailed at malderman@alderman.com.
Frank
Browne Elected to Board of Representatives for the City Stamford.
During the past general election, the people of the city of Stamford
elected Frank Browne to their Board of Representatives. Mr. Browne
enters his 11th year as of counsel to Alderman & Alderman. Frank
can be e-mailed at fbrowne@alderman.com
Morris
Pollack Brings His Intellectual Property Expertise to Alderman &
Alderman. We are pleased to announce that Morris Pollack has become
of counsel. He brings with him over 30 years of experience with
copyrights, patents, trademarks and other intellectual property. He
formerly served as senior IP counsel for Litton Industries. Morris can
be e-mailed at mpollack@alderman.com.
Eric
Gruber Becomes Of Counsel. Mr. Gruber brings with him to Alderman
& Alderman over 15 years of experience representing creditors and
other parties in interest in bankruptcy cases and creditors' rights
proceedings in the Southern District of New York. Eric can be e-mailed
at egruber@alderman.com
PREPARATION FOR DISASTER
Careful
planning ahead of time can ease the stressful process of responding to
and recovering from natural or man-made disasters. In the middle of an
emergency, when time may be short and the stakes high, is not the time
when individuals should be thinking about important papers and safety
for the first time.
Good
recordkeeping makes sense any time, but becomes especially important in
the aftermath of a disaster. Official documents and financial and
estate planning papers should be kept together as a comprehensive file
in a secure location. The following are some of the documents that
should be easily retrievable:
* birth,
marriage, and death certificates;
*
identification records, such as driver's licenses and
passports;
* titles,
deeds, and vehicle registrations;
* insurance
policies;
* loan
information and credit-card statements;
*
investment and bank account records;
* income
tax information;
* wills and
trust documents.
For
especially important and hard-to-replace documents, keep a set of
originals in a safe-deposit box and a set of copies at home. Include in
your central file the telephone numbers and addresses for the entities
with whom you have accounts or policies. Other family members should
know where the records are kept.
Advance
planning about personal safety means foreseeing the types of disasters
your family may face and knowing the steps each person should take in a
particular kind of emergency. Select a place in the home where everyone
can come together. Confirm your fastest and safest evacuation routes.
Identify the most important tasks to be undertaken and assign tasks to
the most appropriate persons. Each individual should always have the
telephone numbers for family members and emergency help.
|
