Employment At Will Doctrine - Essay Example

Employment-At-Will doctrine Overview The employment at will is a presumption that employment is an indefinite commitment that has no defined period; therefore, either employee or employer can terminate it at any given time with or without alerting the other party. The employment at will is an historical approach, which has seen the courts interpret employee and employer employment relationships. Notably, numerous criticisms emerged to oppose this doctrine in that it was seen as proving unequal bargaining power between employees and employers. Most significant part of the criticism was pegged on the part of the law that locked labor unions from fighting for the rights of the employees. Additionally, the employment at will employment also has harsh judgments that never favored employees. Apparently, the elimination of the labor unions in the lives of employees by this law indicated that it never gave both the employers and employees equal rights in their bargains. Therefore, those who supported the spirit of the union voices felts those unions had good faith in bargaining power part of employees, employers, and job security among other things. Towards the end of the 20th century, the state courts unfolded other expectations of the employment at will doctrine. For instants, other than the bars, the public policy allowed the termination of employees who violated other public policies. For instance, many states never compensated employees for filing their compensation claim that claimed for an on the job injury. However, during this period, many states never allowed employers to terminate the employment of their employees if they (employees) refused to violate the law at their (employers) request. Violation of the public policies varied from state to state. Towards the late 20th century, many states abandoned employments at will doctrine and protection of employees at work increased. Some of the theories that were adopted to increase the employees’ protection include torts, property, and contract theories. It is worth noting that the effectiveness and efficiency of these theories have led to a decrease in union membership especially among the private sector employees. Case One Under Employment-at-Will doctrine, the employer has the free will of terminating an employee’s contract term or erasing the employment terms with or without substantial grounds to do so. This is always effective and applicable provided the employee does not belong to any rights movement. In this case, the employee lacks the requisite expertise to respond competently to her duties and responsibilities. The organization has tried its best in putting her through further training in order for her to gain enough skills to enable her to do her work yet she cannot perform in a way that fulfills her responsibility. As a manager the most important decision that is in the best interest of the company is to relieve her of her duties since she has even failed to benefit from the support and training the company has given her. She has failed to comply with the competency of her position and job capacity (Cihon, 2008). Case Two The fact that she knows and understands her rights does not entitle her to be irresponsible to undertake her duties duly and as required by the policies, rules and regulations of the company. According to the employment rule and liability an employee ought to be responsible for her actions and be responsible for the duties she has been assigned. It is important to outline that all employees are flexible to corrections of their mistakes as observed by the management and other employees (Twomey, 2010). As a manager, under the employment-at-will doctrine I have the responsibility to terminate her employment or contract with or without any reasonable ground to do so. In this case, the employee appears defiant, and threatens the top management with her acknowledgement and awareness of her rights (Twomey, 2010). There is enough ground to prove that the employee has refused to comply with the policies, rules and regulations of the organization. As a manager, the employee shall be given a window period in which her behaviors and characters are observed. I will call her, give her a warning and remind her of the terms and conditions of her employment. After this period, the behaviors of the employee shall be observed in order to identify if indeed they are changed, failing which their employment or contract shall be terminated (Hill, 1987). Case Three The employee has resorted to total defiance of the organization’s policies and instructions. The employer had observed the busy nature of the day and informed every employ to be present unless under prior approval of the management. This is unacceptable, disrespectful and irresponsible of the employee. She has defied the most important element of her duties as an employee. According to the employment-at-will doctrine, the employment relationship between an employer and employee is indefinite; meaning the employment terms of an employee can be terminated at any time with or without reasons but as may be wished by an employer. In the consideration of the factors that surrounds the behavior of the employee, she proved to be in serious contravention of her employment terms and condition (Cihon, 2008). There is no labor union movement for accountants but the employee is mobilizing the other employees so that they can form a union movement that protects their rights and welfare as laborers. The employee should then be held for two accounts of breaching her terms and conditions of employment. One, she has defied the orders of her employer by taking a day off from work without prior approval by the management (Hill, 1987). Second, she has completely contravened the fact that accountants are not allowed to form labor union movements or be part of any by mobilizing her co-workers to form a union to protect their rights. Under these circumstances considered serious, it is upon the employer’s discretion to take action deemed most appropriate towards the employee. As a manager, below I shall file a report on the employee’s utter disrespect and defiance of the organization’s order, rules and regulations. As the manager, I will find it necessary to relieve the employee of her duties and responsibilities because she has broken the terms and conditions that bound her to the employer (Cihon, 2008). Case Four The dating of the supervisors is prohibited in the organization and any attempt to do so contravenes the provisions as provided in the employee handbook. The handbook contains the stipulations that all employees are supposed to adhere to, failing which severe repercussions will follow. The terms and conditions that bind the employer and employee is the adherence to the organization’s policies, rules and regulations. According to the employment-at-will doctrine “any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work” (Cihon, 2008). The law also continues to expound that the employment is indefinite, terminable at the discretion of any of the parties. As a result, the employee has broken the rules that prohibited her from dating her supervisor. Her friend who advised her and who is very much aware of the policies of the organization is also liable for the problem between her friend and the supervisor. As a result, all of the people involved in this scandal, the supervisor, the employee and her co-worker should be brought to the fore and questioned about their involvement. Their report should be compiled and sent to the top management for further consideration for the appropriate actions (Hill, 1987). References Cihon, Patrick J., & Castagnera, James Ottavio. (2008). Employment and Labor Law. South-Western Pub. Hill, A. D., & Wharton School. (1987). "Wrongful discharge" and the derogation of the at-will employment doctrine. Philadelphia: Industrial Research Unit, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Twomey, D. P. (2010). Labor & employment law: Text & cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Read More