Human Resource Development in Dataforce Company - Case Study Example

Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date Assignment is due: Human Resources in Organizations - The Data Force Contract Introduction Many reasons may necessitate the dismissal of an employee .some of the reasons may be circumstantial while others may be caused by an employees conduct. One circumstantial reason for an employee’s dismissal may be redundancy that may be caused by improvement in technology hence rendering an employee’s services redundant. Downsizing of businesses is also another reason that may lead to organizations lying off some workers. Downsizing in most cases is supposed to enable the company stay competitive and profitable. Sometimes companies become automated and hence some workers get replaced. This calls for the company to dismiss the replaced employees. Some of the reasons behind lying off workers may be caused by the workers themselves. At times, a worker may not be doing his/her job as expected thus lowering productivity. Such a worker may be dismissed if warnings do not bear fruits. Another that would necessitate an employee’s dismissal is gross misconduct within the organization. Employees may also be dismissed for misconduct that occurs outside the organization’s premises. In this case, the question that would arise is whether the bad act had a negative impact on the organizations image regardless of whether it occurred within or without the work place. Although the management may be justified in firing a worker, care must be taken the employer must behave in a professional and unbiased manner. All legalities concerning employee’s dismissal must be followed. This is because an employee fired unfairly can have grounds to sue. If successful in suing the company, this can have adverse effects on the company’s image. In the Dataforce contract case, it is evident that Brian has been an employee of Dataforce Company since 1996 despite there being no written contract. This is because he has served the company for a long time and hence the rules that apply to workers with written contracts will also apply to him. This can be deduced from the case of Cecol v. Ontario gymnasium. Here, the court held that employers cannot avoid their obligations to pay a reasonable notice by having an employee serve many short unsigned contracts. The fact that Brian has served as a Dataforce company’s staff since 1996 imply that there has been an employment contract between Brian and the company. In fact, the company has gone on to promote Brian to an executive director’s post. Therefore the company can not pretend that there does not exist an employment contract between it and Brian. This being the case, the company must treat Brian as if there existed a written contract. He must be given a reasonable notice for the termination of his employment contract. He must also be given full reasons for termination of his employment and all the benefits entitled to him paid (Lazear and Rosen 128-129). It is obvious that Brian is not going to accept misconduct as the reason for his contract being brought to an end. This is because the company itself accepts that there has been no serious misconduct by him. They have also rated his performances being acceptable. The only option available for Sally Chen is to prove that Brian’s act in the social event was of gross misconduct and that it had negative effect on the company’s image. The fact that he behaved inappropriately in a public place where the company’s customers could have been present could have made think the customers to reconsider their relationship with the company. This is especially so because Brian is a senior employee of the company who is supposed to portray the company’s image wherever he is. In Ann v.Whitney Travel Company, Ann who was a well known senior employee of the company had gone out on a drinking spree she had got over drank to the fact that she could no longer control herself. She started abusing everyone in the pub including her boyfriend who was also an employee of the company. As a result, a fight broke out and Ann was badly hurt in the fight. She could not go for work for the next one month since she was hospitalized. During her hospitalization, the management learnt the cause of the fight and the impact this could have had on the company. During a board of directors meeting, it was decided that her employment contract be terminated. Consequently, Ann sued the company accusing it of unfair dismissal arguing that the incident occurred outside of work. In its defense, the company argued that Ann being a senior employee was supposed to behave well at all times as she is the image of the company. Furthermore, many people in the locality knew her and this was likely to damage their attitude towards the company. In dismissing her case, the court argued that it does not matter where the conduct occurs but its effects or potential impact on the employers business, whether because the company may be damaged in a way; because the act is not compatible with proper performance of the workers duties; because it impacts upon the employers duty upon other workers, Or for other reasons that undermines trust and confidence. Hence, the company’s decision to fire Ann was upheld. Similarly, Dataforce Company will be able to argue its case basing its argument on the fact that Brian’s misconduct even though outside the company had a negative impact on the company and hence have him fired (Redman 99). Since there is no signed contract between Brian and the firm about his employment, there is therefore no restriction on where he can be employed after leaving his current employment. This is because there is no contract to provide for his post employment conduct. There is no contract that prevents him from joining a competitor either immediately or after sometimes. If such a contract existed, then Brian would have been bound by the contract. Hence it would have been possible to sue him for damages if he joins a competitor. In the case of McClellan v. Charleston, the company had sued the defendant for getting employment with a competitor immediately after termination of his contract. The company wanted compensation claiming that he was likely to give the company’s secrets. The court of appealed argued that since there existed no non-competition contract, the company could not restrict the defendant from getting employed wherever he wished. Further, even in cases where there is such a contract, the court can deem it null and void if found to be unfair to one party. If Brian provides confidential marketing information to his new employer who is also Dataforce’s competitor, Dataforce may sue Brian in a court of law. This is because stealing business secrets is a crime and inhibits fair competition. However, Dataforce Company must make sure that Brian is aware of this by having him sign a termination statement. For example, Mr.X an employee of company Y was jailed for two years after being found guilty of stealing trade secrets and providing them to a rival company after his contract was terminated. He stole computer files containing trade secrets and gave them to the rival. Consequently this brought about the downfall of company Y. this shows that stealing trade secrets is a crime that is punishable under the law (Mankin 78). If the company eventually decides to terminate Brian’s contract, Brian may appeal to the company’s management for reinstatement of the contract. Brian may also opt to quit the company and look for employment elsewhere. Thirdly, he may decide to sue the company for damages citing irregularities in his firing based on the following facts. First, the company is said not to be performing well and so this could be a plan by the management to downsize by firing people by alleging misconduct. Secondly, the alleged misconduct has not been investigated since Sally and the management was not at the social function but they are just relying on hearsay. Furthermore, the social function had not been organized by Dataforce neither did it take place at the company’s premises. The company accepts that Brian’s performance is acceptable and that he has never been involved in a major misconduct. The management has also promoted Brian to a post of an executive director. This means that he has been a good employee. Based on these facts, Brian will be able to argue that he was fired for other reasons other than the alleged misconduct. He will also be able to show that the fact that he did not have any written contract made him feel helpless and that he was left with no other option but to leave the job. If the company gives him an option of resigning or getting fired, and if he actually resigned, then he will be able to argue that he was forced to quit or be fired and therefore claim damage or reinstatement (Warner 18-19) If Brian leaves the company and eventually lures and employs his former boss’s employees, Data force limited may sue him for damages if at all there existed a non-compete agreement in the employment contract. However, the onus of proof will be on Datafoirce to proof that Brian took any direct action that resulted in the departure of the other employees to his new company. As long as the employee does not use his former influence on Data force employees or does not lure him into deserting Data force for his company, then data force may not succeed in suing Brian. Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to have been a non compete agreement to this effect since there was no written employment contract. Therefore, Brian may get away with it (Mcgoldrick, Stwewart and Watson 110-111). It is evident that a worker may be dismissed on grounds of misconduct even when the alleged misconduct occurs outside workplace. However, it must be proved that the misconduct had a negative effec6ton the employer. Employers must also be honest when firing employees so that employees do not have grounds of suing them. Employers must also ensure that all employees sign employment contracts. This would enable them take action on employees’ breach of post-employment contracts. Works cited Mcgoldrick, Stwewart & Watson S. “Human resource development in small organizations.” Journal of European industrial training, 24.1 (2001): 105-117. Lazear, Edward & Rosen Sherwin. “Rank order tournaments as optimum labor contracts.” Journal of political economy, 57.1 (2009): 121-140. Mankin A. “Model for human resource development.” Human resource international journal, 4.1 (2004): 65-85. Redman T. “Service quality and human resource management.” International journal of human resource management, 78.2 (2006): 96-103. Warner, Malcom. “Human resource and organizations.” International journal of employment studies, 45.3 (2003): 17-25. Lazear&Rozen.Rank order tournaments as optimum labor contracts: Journal of political economy57.1 (2009)121-140 Read More