January 23, 1995
Subject: Suggestion No. 9214420144
Reference: My letter to Mr. D. A. Evangelista dated October 10, 1994
Dear Mr. Lynch:
As requested in your November 17, 1994, letter to me, and as a follow-on to my November 21, 1994, letter to you, this letter shall serve to provide additional information in support of my position that the subject suggestion ("Suggestion") has been implemented and, therefore, I am entitled to an award under the terms of the IBM Suggestion Plan (the "Plan") in effect at the time the Suggestion was submitted. I believe your conclusion that IBM acted properly in not paying me an award is based on interpreting the Plan terms out of context. Rather than delay my response until I can address in detail all of my objections, I think it is more productive at this time to address only a few of the larger issues, leaving the others to be dealt with separately, if necessary.
First and foremost, let there be no misunderstanding, the Suggestion has been implemented. I refer you to the IBM document entitled "National IPS IPSWOW Implementation" dated December 21, 1993, by Wendy Neuberger, which I submitted to Mr. Skip Karl, Manager, IBM Ideas, on March 8, 1994.
I would also like to refer you to suggestion no. 872330049 evaluated April, 1990, and subsequently awarded February, 1992. I have spoken with the suggester (Bruce McCausland), evaluator (Dan Stout) and Plan managers (Jerry Michael and George Hansen) concerning all aspects of the idea, evaluation and award. I believe that you will find the subject matter, evaluation and award of 872330049 to be the same as the circumstances surrounding the award of my Suggestion.
Second, in response to points 4, 5 and 6 of your letter, please refer to my memo to Mr. Skip Karl dated March 8, 1994, PROFS note to Mr. George Krawiec dated May 16, 1994, and PROFS note to Mr. Skip Karl dated May 18, 1994. In the case of my Suggestion, I have had numerous documented discussions with the evaluators of my Suggestion (Greenstein, Horton, McGovern, Dauser, Meaden). All issues concerning the Suggestion being "predated", "in the maturing process", or "an idea on a subject periodically reexamined by management" have been satisfactorily addressed and are no longer a valid position for withholding my award.
Third, I agree that suggestion submissions to the Plan are governed by the provisions of the Plan in effect at the time the they are submitted. However, the courts have repeatedly ruled that companies cannot use strong, one-sided language in the terms of their suggestion program in an effort to escape from distributing award compensation on any sort of discretionary or variable basis. Furthermore, these recent court decisions indicate that, despite any strong, one-sided language in a company’s suggestion program, the obligation of "good faith and fair dealing" will be implied against the company in every situation. Suggestion program evaluators and administrators must be independent and exercise their discretion fairly and uniformly, while maintaining accurate records of the reasons leading them to withhold an award. In the case of my Suggestion, this clearly has not been done.
Finally, in accordance with IBM Manager’s Manual reference 02-24, IBM Suggestion Plan, dated May 30, 1986 (copy attached), "A suggestion will remain eligible for an award even though the idea in the suggestion is implemented without the knowledge of the existence of the suggestion". Please note that 02-24 was in effect at the time the Suggestion was submitted.
Please be advised that as a former branch office Administrative Operations Manager responsible for the administration, including evaluation and review, of suggestions submitted under the Plan, I know the Plan extremely well. During my ten (10) years at IBM, I have submitted over 100 suggestions (of which over 40 are still open or in dispute) and have received almost $100,000 in awards.
A review of my suggestion records will reveal the Suggestion Department’s consistent failure to administer my suggestions in accordance with the terms of the Plan. Examples include: 1) Mr. G. Karl’s, Manager, IBM Ideas, letter to me dated July 25, 1994, re: suggestions 923040068, 74, 77 and 923090023. I still have not received my evaluations. 2) Suggestions 923040097 and 923090017 were rejected due to being "predated". To this date, no one has acknowledged that the "predate" indicated to reject these two suggestions is my suggestion. 3) Suggestions 923040049, 52, 53, 63, 72, 78, 97, 102; 923090017 were never evaluated. 4) Suggestions 923040100, 111 and 923090009-11 were not evaluated in accordance with the Plan. 5) Reevaluations for 923040082, 93, 94, 101, 105, 923090023, 24, 26, 27, 32 were never completed. And on and on and on...
As a result of the additional information provided herein, all of which should be in the Suggestion file, should you be unable to conclude that the Suggestion has been implemented and, therefore, I am eligible for an award, please contact me immediately. I ask that you provide me with a written response to this letter by February 10, 1995. Should you need copies of any information referenced herein or have any further questions, please call me. It is my sincere interest to come to a mutually agreeable resolution to this matter without having to take legal action.
Very truly yours,
Keith S. Gibby
cc: Mr. D. A. Evangelista, Armonk, NY (914/765-6252 fax)