Ben xxxx, Chief Financial Officer, xxxxx Holdings.
The purpose of this correspondence is to place a formal protest regarding the decision to reinstate the regular employment of Johan in the Corporate Lab. I have nothing but the greatest respect for you, your position, and your ultimate decision with regards to this matter. The consequences are already far reaching and long lasting no matter the outcome. But I can not sit by idle and allow this issue to continue until I have said my peace. .
I myself must be held accountable for some of the fault. There were things I could have done that MAY have prevented the situation from escalating to its current level. You have the findings of the investigation conducted by human resources and I will not waste your time re-entreating old facts. But I do want to bring to your attention some issues that may not have been brought to light. I"m sure that you have my statement on the issue; Chronology of Events: The Termination of Johan . This statement sums up my point of view up until the Monday after Mr. Johan was terminated. Since that time I have learned (or come to realize) several other issues relevant to the incident. .
The issue, to summarize, seems to be that every one involved (including HR after their prolonged investigation) is of the opinion that Mr. Johan is NOT some one with who we would like to continue an employer/employee relationship. But Mr. Johan could possibly have a viable wrongful termination lawsuit against the company based on prior actions or verbal statements made by his supervisor mr. B. That being the argument of Human Resources. I obviously have great differences with this opinion. I have listed them below. .
1. Mr. Johan was terminated for destroying company property and that only. He was previously given two verbal warnings on the matter. Yet his behavior persisted. .
2. I Personally witnessed Mr. Johan harassing another employee (by hiding jobs that another employee was working on) .