Was I Too Hasty?

I think I may have made a mistake in my last post when I laughingly dismissed the idea that collusion between the company and union was the reason for my being fired. I reverse myself and I've decided to take the possibility seriously.

Why was I terminated?

A. The Tacit Admission Rule

In civil cases, the law has long recognized that a party's silence when confronted with a statement made in his presence under circumstances that would normally call for a denial constitutes an admission. See Bailey v. Bensely , 87 Ill. 556 (1877); Dill v. Widman , 413 Ill. 448, 454, 109 N.E.2d 765, 769 (1952); Breslin v. Bates , 14 Ill. App. 3d 941, 947, 303 N.E.2d 807, 812 (1973). This doctrine also applies under certain circumstances in criminal cases, but its application there has been much more restricted. In People v. Aughinbaugh , 36 Ill. 2d 320, 322-23, 223 N.E.2d 117, 119 (1967), the supreme court addressed this doctrine--calling it the "tacit admission rule"--as follows:

"While the tacit admission rule obtains in this State, and the silence of a defendant in the face of an accusation of guilt may be shown at his trial as evidence of guilt, such evidence should be received with caution and only when the conditions upon which it becomes admissible are clearly shown to exist."

I don't know what all that means but  since I've been told that both the company and union are aware of this blog, I ought to give any interested party the opportunity the opportunity to respond. You have my word that I'm offering an unedited say and that I have no interest in getting into an argument. I'm just really curious as to the answer to my question, what right did you have to fire me and why didn't my union offer any defense?