It's not fair to the employer to conclude that the SIP and quota letter because before the release of the same the employee already had a binding contract on the term of payment specifically for him. Another reason why not the employer had term and conditions that applied to the specified SIP that was on the brochure and the lack of follow up for further clarification by the employee in this Mr. Jensen is an individual error that needs not to be burdened on the IBM which is the employer. At the same time IBM could argue that since he was employed in the year 2000 and the new incentive plan was created in 2001, it was meant for the new incoming sales employees for that year hence it didn't apply to him. So the employee should have done the appropriate thing of referring to the management to clarify especially on the clause which allowed them to adjust and decide the appropriate payment in some cases.
The clauses in the SIP program indicate that whatever contract the employee has signed is rendered quite useless, this is due to the fact that it will only be fulfilled only if transactions of lower limits. Hence meaning that the employer has the right to withhold the payment and give the commission which coincides with their policies. On an ethical basis it's not fair at all to claim to have a contract especially which doesn't apply all and is only met in situation when the transactions done are of minimal figures. This is because any contract should be all binding and should be upheld at all times without such clauses that only seem to favor the employers only. This is unfair to employees and unjust and if such SIP (Sales Incentive Plan) are to be created, then it should bind every employee in their organization and be standard.