Dillon v. Champion Jogbra - Research Paper Example

DILLON V. CHAMPION JOGBRA DILLON V. CHAMPION JOGBRA According to studies, any company in existence may carry out its daily activities in a way that compromises or breaks the laid down procedures for any organization in a particular business environment in relation to the existing regulations. However, when a company respects and follows the legal procedures in hiring employees and the operations it takes, then the company does its operations and exists legally. This means that, any deviation from legitimate practices will bring out legal issues.

In the case of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, there are various legal issues surrounding its operation and terms of employment (Perritt, 2006). To begin with, the petitioner or plaintiff, claims that her employment (at-will kind of) had been modified and caused her termination, she was supposed to receive extensive on-job training, something that was not done. To be precise, Dillon`s whole terms of employment were bridged. The other legal issue is about the employment manual, which seems more ambiguous in the sense that it does protect the employees as such but it is put there for the sake of the employer.

This because it does specify the minimal period any particular employment term should take. On the other hand, this case contain an implied contract scenario, where Dillon`s employers make local; arrangements with her concerning a job she was to take. In this case, there are fewer formalities involved, beginning with the interview, only the contacted person faces the panel and no other applicants are present. It is more of a direct promotion. The employer sets the terms of the job and its benefits; however, there are no legal bindings to this kind of arrangement.

Here the employer normally takes steps to give an employee the impression of security of the job in question. In addition, the employee associated with such terms of employment or indirect promotion; usually enjoy the benefits that such employment environment brings with it (Jennings, 2010). The implied contract has no substantive limitation whatsoever, on the right that contracting parties are able to modify the terms and give specific terms in addition to the existing ones, which supersedes the terminable at-will employment terms or arrangements.

This means that the employer may be bound by a commitment that allows him to use only certain procedures in terminating employees. Moreover, any implied contract has to be honored by both parties for effective working and this makes beneficial to the associated parties; if this is not the case, then the implied contract may be termed as breached. For the disappointing, way that Champion Jogbra ended Dillon’s contract raises eyebrows about the conditions in which such practice emanates from.

From the details given about the implied contract that the plaintiff was associated with, it was clear that Dillon was not well versed with the new sales administrator job at the time she was offered the same job. The employer knew about this fact and promised to make arrangements for Dillon’s training so that she could meet the required expectations. The employer had the duty to offer Dillon extensive training in accordance with the new job`s requirement; the training was supposed to be so extensive in accordance with the roles of the job.

Despite all this presumed conditions, Champion`s management did not honor its promise but instead get less than minimal training to Dillon. It was also wrong for the management not to inform Dillon about her progress and the necessary corrections she needed to meet the expectation, instead the company kept quiet and watched her sample. Without consultation, Dillon got a fake position that served literally as an exit point for her. Finally, there are a few reasons why the disclaimer in the employee manual does not have the effect desired by the employer.

It is important to note that, the policies and procedures contained in the employee manual are not real policies that bind both parties to terms contained in it. It other words, Champion Jogbra, does not have contractual terms that relate to the parties, especially the employees (Walsh, 2012). It means that the employee have not contractual protection as it is required by law. It is clear that these policies do not the general employment contract and that they are not meant to offer or direct any commitment to employees in regard to individual employee`s actions, may be handled at any given time.

In essence, Jogbra`s contractual policies are in all manner of description, vague and serves only the interest of the employer. This is because; the contract does not give any assurance about the minimum length of any employment terms and the terminable conditions. References Jennings, M. (2010). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Perritt, H. (2006).Employee Dismissal: Law and Practice. Michigan: Aspen Publishers Online. Walsh, D. (2012). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice.

California, CA: Cengage Learning.