Employment at Will Doctrine - Research Paper Example

Employment at Will Doctrine Introduction The Tennessee Supreme Court articulated this doctrine in 1884 whereit stated that there should be no interference with employers’ right, whether to release or retain them at will for good cause or for no cause, or even for bad cause, they cannot be held guilty of an unlawful act in the strictest sense (Summers, 2000). Therefore employers in the United States of America have a right over their employees and can dismiss or retain them at their own will without threats of legal action as experienced in the common law and statutes that protect employees from unfair dismissal and discharge from employment without a just cause. The assumption in this doctrine is that the employee only supplies the labor and has no legal interest in the business enterprise other than to be paid for the labor offered while the employer has the sole right to determine everything on how the enterprise operates or it is run. The American labor law has however been in a confused mode as in certain instances; there courts and the legislature develop some rules to limit the employers’ absolutism over his employees while at the same time adhering to the employment at will doctrine. Therefore, the premise of the doctrine is that the employer has the sovereignty over the rights of the employees except to the extent it has expressly granted those rights and expresses as well as implements the subordination of workers to the persons who have control over the business enterprise. In the absence of a provision protecting the employee from such acts in the employment contract, workers are subordinate and their terms and conditions of employment can be changed in any way and at any time meaning they can be dismissed without reason or notice. Exceptions to Employment at Will Doctrine Due to the ambivalence of the employment at will doctrine, the courts have made decisions to limit its scope in order to provide protection to employees who may be unfairly dismissed or unjustly discharged from employment. One way the courts have diminished the scope of employment at will doctrine is to allow an employee discharged from employment to sue in tort rather than in contract as held in Petermann v. Intl Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959). In this case, the California court held that the discharging of an employee along the doctrine because he refused to commit perjury was contrary to public policy and therefore the employee could sue the employer for emotional distress, loss of income as well as punitive damages. Limitations on employment at will doctrine has also been accomplished through bringing together the ordinary contract principles and coming up with exceptions to the strict rule that an employment for an indefinite time is a contract at will. The “handbook rule” articulated by the Michigan Supreme Court in 1980 in the decision Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 292 N.W.2d 880 (Mich.1980) (Cihon and Castagnera, 2002).  This decision provided that when an employer distributes to his employees a handbook or a manual that sets out the policies on rules of conduct, the procedures and benefits in the employment relationship, the handbook or the manual becomes part of the employment contract. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 491 A.2d 1257, 1264 (N.J. 1985) the court held that a policy manual that entrenches security grants that enable the protection of the fundamental protection for the right of workers and must be honored by the employer. Another exception based on contracts law is the understood agreement of good faith and fair dealing which according to American labor laws is an implied obligation in all contracts. Therefore, the courts argue that a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a tort, which can attract substantial damages for awards on emotional distress, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and in certain instances punitive damages. In Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 316 A.2d 549 (N.H. 1974), the court held that a married woman whose contract of employment was terminated at will by the employer because she refused to date her foreman could not be discharged from employment. Similarly the California Court of Appeals, Second District in Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., 168 Cal. Rptr. 722 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.1980) applied the implied covenant to employees who had served for a long period of time and argued that they could not be discharged as they had served the employer for a considerably long time. In Skagerberg v. Blandin Paper Co. 266 N.W. 872 (Minn. 1936) elaborated the employment at will doctrine by stating that such contracts do not apply the elementary principles of contract interpretation and therefore unless expressly stated as so. It would be difficult to enforce claims by employees that they have been unfairly dismissed at will by employers (Dannin, 2006). Having considered the arguments and the interpretation of the employment at will doctrine as well as the doctrines, as the Chief Operating Officer is within the legal mechanism to terminate at will the employment of John who posted a criticism of a customer on Facebook, Jim who sent a protest email to salespeople, Ellen who started a blog to protest the CEOs bonus. In addition, the employment of Bill and the secretaries at the accounts department as well as Joe who sent a personal email using the company computer are within the meaning of the doctrine of employment at will. However, public policy considerations are important and at times, the court may apply them to protect an employee from dismissal or discharge from his duties at will by the employers who apply the employment at will doctrine (Kohn, 2001). It would be against public policy to discharge Anna from her duties for her engagement in the jury based on the decision in Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975) where an employee was protected from discharge for serving on a jury. The secretary to the department supervisor cannot be fired for her refusal to prepare false expense reports for her boss as the decision held in Peterson v. Browning, 832 P.2d 1280 (Utah 1992) and Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v.Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) protects an employee from discharge when he refuses to join in the employers illegal practices Although the exceptions have been restricted, they continue to exist as American employers can still dismiss an employee at will at any time, without notice and with vigor showing that, the employers are still favored (Ballam, 2000). This means that the argument based on public policy is grudgingly applied by courts and can only be applied unless the public policy is clearly expressed in constitutional or statutory provisions of the American legal system. However, many states now have systems where many states do not allow the termination of employment of an employee at will for filing a worker’s compensation claims after an injury suffered on the job or the refusal to violate the law at the employer’s request. Conclusion The cases discussed above show that the courts might at times apply the exceptions in order to protect employees from unjust dismissal while the employers’ prerogative has been restricted through protective legislation. The lack of legal protection against termination of employment at will by employers can be remedied through collective bargaining agreements that prohibit discharge without just cause. As an employer, I would recommend policies that protect the employee from an adverse employment decision if they report any wrongdoing by employer. Employers should therefore be allowed to report any wrongs or inadequacies in workplace health and safety, environmental protection or accounting fraud. The rationale for this is the fact that in most instances find themselves at fault and therefore for dismissal at will due to the likelihood of complaints against poor health and safety, fraud and environmental standards at the workplace. References  Ballam, D. (June 01, 2000). Employment-at-Will:-: The Impending Death of a Doctrine. American Business Law Journal, 37, 4, 653-687. Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2002). Employment and labor law. Cincinnati, Ohio [u.a.: West/Thomson Learning. Dannin, E. J. (2006). Taking back the workers law: How to fight the assault on labor rights. Ithaca, N.Y: ILR Press/Cornell University Press. Kohn, S. M. (2001). Concepts and procedures in whistleblower law. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books. Summers, C. W. (2000). Employment at will in Unites States: The divine right of employers. U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 3, 1, 65-86. Read More