I am not sure this is the correct forum for this question but thought this would be a good place to start.

I have recently taken early retirement from a large company because they are
downstaffing and moving some jobs to a temporary service. After a few weeks
I was asked by the temporary service to train their employees and manage the
same job I used to do. When this was presented to my old company they
refused to allow me back into the plant to work stating that I was required
to not work in the plant for 12 months because I had taken a "package".

I believe they set a precedent that would allow this because they also
outsourced all the IT services and every employee immediately transferred to
the outsource company and one of them was allowed to take a package before
she transferred. I went back and reviewed the severance package contract as
well as all the other documentation related to my retirement and can find
nothing indicating I can't work for a different company that happens to be
in the same building as my original company on any timeframe.

Note that I worked for the company for 15 years and retired with all normal
benefits. I did not take early termination and was not asked to leave. I
left for an opportunity for advancement and this definitely would be an
advancement as I would be managing 30+ people.

My questions are: Is this legal? Can the company enforce demands such as
this when I will be working for an entirely different company that happens
to be working in the same building? What would you suggest as a plan of
action?

Thanks for your time.

John C

I would say that we do not yet know what is legal or not. To say that they would not allow you back into the building etc because you took a "package" does not give any info nor does it constitute an explanation of a denial. I suggest that the company that you are now working for should get the reasoning and legal basis for the denial of entry in writing from your ex-employer. as the first step.

GBurns is correct. However, if there is any "prohibition", it should already exist in writing, presumably on the same piece of paper that has your signature acknowledging it. If you took a "package", look at the written materials you already have.

Even if such does exist, and is legit, it may be that your former employer is being unreasonable, to their own detriment. That is, your role of training very likely could be of benefit to them. If that happens, be sure to get a written statement releasing you from any restictions.

In a well drafted early retirement or severance plan there will be a provision that prohibits the employee from coming back to work for a stipulated period of time usually two years. The reason is to prevent the employee from double dipping: taking the early retirement benefits and then returning to work and collecting a salary. Your former employer could view your working for the temp agency as continuing to work for the employer because the employer is paying the temp agency's fees.

Even if there is no written provision prohibiting the employee from returning immediately after taking early retirement there is nothing to prevent the employer from refusing to allow a former employee back into the plant because the owner can set any rules it wants for persons who set foot on its property.

True the employer can set any rules regarding who can set foot on his property, but then he might be violating his contract with other company and might only be doing so out of a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the contract terms of this new arrangement by whomever denied entry to John C. Most employees are not aware of the specific of the contracts that their employing companies enter into.

Very often wellmeaning employees do the wrong thing. Most employees even in HR are not aware of the ramifications of non-compete agreements or restrictions on the right to employment etc of ex-employees. Trying to "reach through" and claim co-employer status is something that the employer really might want to condier carefully. Then again, we really do not know what was said and the authority etc of that person.

Two other potential explanations for the employer's insistence here may be (1) the employer does want an issue about whether you really terminated employment, and (2) the employer does not want you to be viewed as a "leased employee."