Employment-At-Will Doctrine - Article Example

EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL DOCTRINE affiliation EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL DOCTRINE Summary of the Employment-at-Will Doctrine in the Text Normally, the employees without a written employment agreement can easily be fired for bad cause, good cause, or absolutely no cause. In situations of at-will, either the employee or the employer terminates the relationship in the employment, without or with cause, without or with warning, unless the agreement is present with express conditions and terms that cover the termination. The employment at will doctrine has its own limits. Terminations that are initiated by employers must not be connected to discrimination or violation of certain state or federal laws. For instance, an employer is not allowed to take any negative employment action against any worker because of disability, gender, national origin, age, or any legal protected activity or characteristics. The protected activities include jury service, refusing to carry out an illegal action, reporting violation laws, filing the compensation claim of workers, and filing a discrimination complaint on the basis of sex, color, race, disability, or national origin. Since upset workers tend to sue a company on the above named grounds, it is advised that a company maintain the records of the performance of an employee (BALLAM, 2000). The records helps in giving evidence of disciplinary actions that are not linked to the protected activity. The status of an employee-at-will may be changed by an implied or written contract, local law, or a state. Assuming an employee and employer enters into a written agreement; any termination must be carried pursuant to the contract terms and conditions. A discharged employee who claims the partied have contractually agree to the rights of the employers to terminate has the liability to prove the written representation on that note (New York joins the states overturning the employment-at-will doctrine: Employee handbooks are the key, 1983). After the parties agree to the terms of service, the workers can never be discharged unless with a reason. Generally, the oral assurance that a worker will not be dismissed without a good reason does not amend the status of an employee at will. There are various limited exceptions to the doctrine of employment at will. Under this rule, the law does not apply if the relationship of employment is governed by an agreement with a given employment term. Additionally, the employment at will doctrine shall not apply is the agreement and contract offers that a worker cannot be dismissed unless the employer has a good cause. The exception provision is common and in the entire collective bargaining contract between the management and the union. Consequently, it is noted that sometimes the provision in the handbook of an employee is construed as an agreement and may hinder the doctrine application, A perfect illustration is the provision that states that a worker can only be terminated unless the employer has a perfect cause of doing that. According to the exception of the public policy, Ellen who started a blog to protest the bonus of the CEO should not be terminated. Additionally, the secretary should not be terminated for insubordination. Consequently, Anna should not be dismissed for attending the jury duty without permission. This is because she attended the jury out of good faith and utmost loyalty. The best shot for this is the implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith. Under this ethical theory, the court of law may find an incorrect termination if the worker can establish that the employer has shown in various ways that she has the security of the job and will be treated in a fair manner. Fundamentally, the employers implies that it will operate fairly based on the employment relationship. From the text, Ellen started log protesting the bonus of the CEO. He noted that no one has gotten a rise for the last two years and portraying the boss as incompetent. From the scenario Ellen should not be dismissed. This is because it as against the law to terminate the employment of an employee as a tactic to free him out. For the secretary case, the supervisor of the department requested the sacking of the secretary for insubordination because the secretary has always been praised, and she refused to prepare false report for her boss. For this reason, the secretary should be fired. This is because, the law do not allow the employers to dismiss the employees for refusing to violate the set laws at the request of the employer The third scenario is where Anna’s boss did not approve her request for leave and she now wants Anna to be dismissed for being absent without her approval. Similarly this case does not call for Annas dismissal from work (BALLAM, 2000). Ellen needs to be advised on ways and channels of handling his grievances within the work setting. Proper complaint framework need to be set up in the company where the employees will be airing their concern. The action is based on the Kantianism theory where Ellen needs to be motivated by proper principles of treating everyone with some respect, starting from the CEO. The boss of the secretary needs to be briefed on ethical issues that deal with corruption. On the extreme cases, she should be dismissed due corruption and selfish interest on the company’s resources. This is according to contract theory which proposes doing the right thing. Anna boss need to be taught on how to be flexible on her employees especially on emergency matters. This decision is based on the utilitarianism theory where the actions of Annas boss need not to create suffering on Anna based on her tight decisions (New York joins the states overturning the employment-at-will doctrine: Employee handbooks are the key, 1983). For instance, recently a Texas court passed a ruling when the manager of the employee told the court that he will not discharge the worker provided he abided by the law. Although the policy manuals and the employee handbook are normally viewed as guidelines that are non-binding, language that appears on the handbook that restricts the rights of the employer to terminate may be taken as the status at will. The municipal charters that have provisions requiring a cause show for the termination on employees can alter the relationship at-will. Similarly, state provisions need the removal causes. For instance, vote of no confidence can remove an officer for corruption, malfeasaance, incompetency, and corruption in office after offering the officer with due opportunity and notice to be heard. Assuming the council wants to dismiss an officer due to lack of confidence, two thirds of the council is likely to dismiss the officer at any instance  (Mixon, 1994). In conclusion, normally, the employees without a written employment agreement can easily be fired for bad cause, good cause, or absolutely no cause. The employment at will doctrine has its own limits. Terminations that are initiated by employers must not be connected to discrimination or violation of certain state or federal laws. The protected activities include jury service, refusing to carry out an illegal action, reporting violation laws, filing the compensation claim of workers, and filing a discrimination complaint on the basis of sex, color, race, disability, or national origin. After the parties agree to the terms of service, the workers can never be discharged unless with a reason. Generally, the oral assurance that workers will not be dismissed without a good reason does not amend the status of an employee at will. Assuming an employee and employer enters into a written agreement; any termination must be carried pursuant to the contract terms and conditions (Mixon, 1994). References BALLAM, D. (2000). EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL: THE IMPENDING DEATH OF A DOCTRINE.American Business Law Journal, 37(4), 653-687. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2000.tb00281.x Mixon, F. (1994). The diffusion of judicially provided employment protection: the employment-at-will doctrine. Applied Economics, 26(12), 1159-1162. doi:10.1080/00036849400000113 New York joins the states overturning the employment-at-will doctrine: Employee handbooks are the key. (1983). Employment Relations Today, 10(1), 3-13. doi:10.1002/ert.3910100102 \ . Read More