The Recruitment Process, Negligence in Hiring - Employing Tao Wong - Case Study Example

MANAGEMENT Name: Subject: Tutor: Date MANAGEMENT Introduction Human resource management is the most crucial department in any organization. They are the key controller in the department because they handle issues which influence the performance of an organization. Human resource managers handle issues such as planning, hiring and empowering of employees among others. There are various theories, which focus mainly on the methods of recruitment, effective way of selecting relevant employees and finally the benefits of interviews. The recruitment process is complex especially the external recruitment. On the other hand, the internal recruitment is easy because the manager is interviewing people whom they know their characters. However, some organization failed to follow the required channel of recruiting employees. This paper will analyze the effect of entering into a contract without the capacity to act on such contract. The main issue of human resource in this paper is the issue of revoking a contract which was valid and enforceable by law[Cat]. The major discussion in this paper concerns the Great Southern University’s changed contract of employing Tao Wong. Anthony Rodrequez, the human resource manager, change the terms of contract between Tao Wong and the university. Though Tao Wong had legally accepted the offer made to him by Professor Elizabeth Sinclair, it is clear that Elizabeth was only passing the information and not making the contract (Australian Bureau of Statistics ) Negligence in hiring There was an issue of negligence in the university because the department of management made the decision to hire Dr Wong and gave wrong terms of the contract. Elizabeth, head of managing department, entered into a contract with the Dr Wong and promised some of the elements which were not covered in the contract. This was negligence. The professor knew what has been covered in the contract before making an offer to Dr Wong. Tao can as well sue Elizabeth for negligence. These are compensated through compensatory damages. This compensation covers medical and other damages experience. Another remedy for negligence is nominal damages. This remedy will cover for the damages which are not physical such as the expenses and the sacrifice he made to relocate to Australia. Besides, Dr Wong has to seek for compensation for damages for wrong details and false promises by the professor. This promise and details given by the professor is the factors which made Dr Wong to accept the offer and relocate[Jef12]. Acceptance of an Offer by Telephone. The law of contract, to be complete, needs to be communicated and accepted. Acceptance is only complete when the party making it receives that information; offer has been accepted. Acceptance is complete the moment it is sent and not when the offeror received. However, there are exceptions of this rule. When the acceptance is through indirect means, then the acceptance is considered complete when the person making the offer receives the confirmation of acceptance. Acceptance through the phone or telephone is instantaneous and, therefore, acceptance through such means is complete when the acceptance is heard. Acceptance made by telephone has never been effective because in some cases, there might be network problems making the conversation fail[Rog10]. Dr Wong was not happy about the decision made by Anthony. The contract was changed from the initial agreement between Dr Wong and Elizabeth. Anthony explained the exact terms of the contract which is contained in the official contract form. Some of the terms which were changed in the contract are the allowance for the airfares. Anthony clarified the issue of airfares. He told Dr Wong that airfares were not covered in the contract because it is not part of the contract. Furthermore, Dr Wong had informed Elizabeth that he was coming to Australia. This means that Dr Wong was to come to Australia with or without employment. How could the situation have been avoided? The situation could be avoided by ensuring that everyone in the organization knows what is expected of him. It is essential for the department to have a protocol to be used in an organization. Some of the issues to clarify for efficient performance include. The functions, responsibilities and the powers vested to these departments should be clear to avoid confusion. Managers are supposed to hold the meeting with all the departments and clarify the function of each. In the case of Great Southern University, it is evidence that some department does not know their roles. For example, Professor Elizabeth Sinclair, head of the Management Department offered a vacancy to Dr Wong whom he accepted through the telephone. Finally, the contract was null and void. This was because Elizabeth had no capacity to enter into an employment contract with anyone. Dr Wong cannot sue for damages because the contract was null and void. One can only sue for the damages when the parties entering into such contract have the capacity for such. Human resource manager of the Great Southern University is the only party who has the powers to hire the employees of the university. Dr Wong should, therefore, consult the human resource in terms of the employment[Rog12]. However, Dr Wong can seek damages for misleading conduct offered by Elizabeth. According to the common law of Australia, Professor Elizabeth Sinclair head of the Management Department is to be sued for damages. Dr Wong can sue the professor so that he can be restored into previous position. Dr Wong spent a lot of money in relocating to Australia knowing that the employer will compensate for the same. The professor had promised Dr Wong that the university will compensate for the transport allowances and other allowances upon the arrival (Benson and Maigraith, pp 23) Equitable Remedies The common law in Australia provides remedies for breaching of valid contracts. Some of these remedies include specific performance whereby the court will give orders to the professor for the specific performance. This will guarantee to Dr Wong that he will be compensated for the loss he had suffered. Another remedy available in an Australian common law is the Injunctions. This is an order by law compelling somebody to stop certain actions in the benefit of another. This remedy is not relevant in the case of Dr Wong[Rog10]. However, the case must be certified that it was not a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a habit of using wrong information either knowingly or innocently in order to induce someone to enter into a contract. If Elizabeth knew that she had no capacity to enter into a contract with Dr. Wong then she will be sued. What are the ethical issues are involved in this case? The Great Southern University is one of the well-established campuses and has earned a high reputation it its performances. Dr Wong had known the university as one of the key institutions in Australia. However, there are four steps to be considered when making an ethical decision concerning the case of Dr Wong and the Great Southern University. 1) Is it possible to determine whether it was an innocent misrepresentation when Professor Elizabeth made an offer to Dr Wong? This can be decided by accessing the duties of Elizabeth in the university. They need to know whether Elizabeth has ever before entered into a contract of employment. This issue is critical because it can affect the reputation and the image of the university. 2) The management needs to be responsible when delegating duties. This will help in avoiding issues such as invitations for the potential employees with no capacity of such action. Furthermore, the university needs to establish the department dealing with issues of advertising the vacant position giving the correct details. When making advertisement, one needs to give all the necessary detail for the interview[Geo07]. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the fact the employees can develop a negative attitude toward the institutions. This will demoralize them and can affect their performance in offering services to clients. What advice would you give Dr Wong? The best advice I would give Dr Wong is suing the University. This is because the university allows the department to make the decision when they have no capacity of making such decision. It is the duty of the university as whole to ensure that the departments are fully aware of their obligations. For example, the Management Department had entered into a contract with Dr Wong for employment[Pau12]. They promise Dr Wong many issues attached to the employment. The head of this department promise Dr Wong to compensate for the transport allowance because Dr Wong had to relocate to Australia. On the arrival, Mr. Anthony refuses to honor the promise complaining that allowance does not cover airfares. I would also advise Dr Wong to sue Elizabeth for Fraudulent misrepresentation. The professor misled Dr Wong knowing that she has not been given the authority of hiring the employees of the university. Professor Elizabeth is fully aware that the human resource manager is responsible for recruiting employees. However, she ignores and went ahead knowingly to mislead Dr Wong. The court of law offers remedies for such fraudulent misrepresentation (Park, and Kim, pp 37). Furthermore, Dr Wong can seek for compensation for the loss he had suffered in the whole process. Elizabeth had promised that the gratuity and medical insurance are covered for the entire family that is the wife to Dr Wong and the children. Human resource change all these claiming the employment terms for gratuity and medical insurance does not cover children[Sco12]. This is extremely unfair, and Dr Wong should seek for fairness in the court. He has to sue the human resource manager himself for changing the terms of the contract without the good reason for doing that. When the contract is complete, it should not be changed except in the following circumstances. The contract can be discharged only on the following circumstances: a) Specific performance - When both parties have met their obligation on the contract. b) Quantum meruit- when a party performs some obligation instead of another, then the contract can be terminated. c) Damages- this when a party pays for the loss suffered by another party due to misrepresentation or negligence. d) Injunction- this is the court order stopping any course of action. e) Rescission- this can be done by mutual consent or act of law that free a party from a contractual obligation. In conclusion, the contract formed through the phone is valid. Under the rules of offer and acceptance, the acceptance can be made by any means provided the person or the party making offer receives the information in time. It is, therefore, acceptable that the acceptance that Dr Wong made through the telephone was valid and actionable in the court of law. The human resource manager of the Great Southern University should plan on how to work with its department. They should assign every department with a role to avoid conflicting of works. In addition, they should ensure that information system is correct so that every department is updated before the decision is made. References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2008, Australian Social Trends, viewed 20 December 2010, http;//www.abs.gov.au Benson, J. and Maigraith, K. 2005. Compassion Fatigues and Bumout, Australian Family Physician, Vol. 34, No. 6, (Online Emerald) Park, J. S. and Kim , T. H. 2009, Do types of organizational culture matter in job satisfaction and intention? Leadership in health services, Vol 22, No. 1, pp, 20-38, viewed December 15, 2010 (online Emerald) Smith, M. E. 2003, Changing an organization’s culture: correlates of success and failure; leadership & Organizational development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 249-261, viewed December 15, 2010 Cat: , (Catteora), Jef12: , (Jeffrey F. Beatty 135), Rog10: , (Knowles 79), Rog12: , (Miller 117), Rog10: , (Knowles 97), Geo07: , (Monahan 45), Pau12: , (Paul Banfield 133), Sco12: , (Scott A. Snell 51), Read More