Employment At Will Doctrine - Assignment Example

? Assignment Employment-at-Will Doctrine The employment-at-will doctrine is a legal rule that was developed in the 19th century and gives employers the power to dismiss their employees at will for a good cause or for activities that are morally wrong, without being guilty of any wrongdoing. Its legal underpinnings mainly consist of the idea that individuals are free to choose to dispose of their labor as they see it fit and that the voluntary contractual promises they make are legitimately enforceable (Muh, 2001). Employment at will implies that an employer can terminate an employment contract at any time for any reason except one that is illegal or for no reason, without incurring legal liability. It also means that an employee can leave his or her current job at any time without any reason and with no adverse legal consequences. However, this doctrine can be modified by a contract. For instance, a contract may provide specific terms of employment and termination procedures for different employees, e.g., most companies only negotiate individual terms of employment for high-level jobs while the collective bargaining agreements presented to other employees are only terminated for cause. The cause in this case refers to reasons such as poor performance, misconduct or economic necessity (Johnson & Wall Jr., 2006). Many exceptions have been carved out by the courts in order to avoid harsh consequences. These common law exceptions include the public policy exception, implied contract and the covenant of good faith. The public policy exception is the most widely recognized common law exception and it seeks to protect employees against actions that may affect the public interest. For example, an accountant cannot be dismissed for refusing to manipulate the books or for reporting an illegal activity in the company. This is an example where the whistleblower policy becomes vital. The whistleblowing policy complements the public policy exception since they both aim to protect an employee from the employer’s retaliation (Outten, 2007). The second exception in the employment-at-will doctrine is the implied contract. This kind of contract may be created in several ways, e.g., through oral assurances by an employer or their representatives, or policies, practices or handwritten assurances by the employer. Therefore, even when there is no written contract between the employer and the employee, as long as there was an oral contract, termination of employment should only be for cause and the correct procedures have to be followed (Arnow-Richman, Glynn, & Sullivan, 2007). The covenant of good faith exception states that the dismissal of an employee is illegal if it is done with malicious intentions or in bad faith, e.g., firing an employee just before a large commission on the job completed is payable. Apart from common law exceptions, there are also other statutory exceptions that are not as popular as their counterparts and have not been widely adopted in many states, for most are similar to the common law exceptions (Stone, 2007). In regard to the first case where one of the employees posted a rant on Facebook criticizing the company’s most important customer, it is very clear that he has gone against the good will of the company and his actions can cause a great loss to the company. Posting a rant on social media amounts to engagement in matters of public interest and going against professional code of ethics. Therefore in regard to the doctrine, publicly criticizing the company’s most important customer is against the company’s ethics, hence the best decision will be to fire him and that will not cause the company any legal damages (Johnson & Wall Jr., 2006). In the second case, Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott at the next sales meeting. Jim has the freedom to exercise his right of expression. This is the contravention of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The change in commission was made out of malice and bad faith, hence firing him would portray a ruthless company incapable of respecting an employee’s rights and having a poor communication system. The best decision in this case will involve engaging proper communication channels to resolve the issue, therefore protecting the company’s image from greater destruction (Muh, 2001). In regard to Ellen’s case of starting a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, pay raise and the boss’ actions, it is clear that she has acted as a whistleblower because she is exposing the form of corruption and embezzlement of funds. In as much as the company does not have a whistle blower policy, removing her may look as retaliation for exposing illegal activities in the company and may lead her to sue the company for damages. This is because such actions are safeguarded under the statutory exceptions that protect against retaliation. Therefore, this will best be solved internally by meeting all the affected parties (Arnow-Richman, Glynn, & Sullivan, 2007). Company resources should be used for the development and sustainment of the company. Therefore, the case of Bill using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side is against the company policy and affects the company negatively. This is so because there will be a tendency of diverting other company resources for personal benefits. Therefore, firing Bill at will is the best decision and there will be no violation of employee rights and the company will not incur any damages. However, he can be given a chance to rectify his mistake through a warning, and this gives the company a good image (Stone, 2007). The use of key logger software aims to improve security and track any crimes within the company. Therefore, regarding the issue of the secretaries in the accounting department deciding to dress in black-and-white stripes in protest of the installation of the software is in contravention of the company’s regulations. A decision to fire them does not go against any policy, but for the sake of the company’s activities and image, a warning and trying to make them understand the reason of the installation of the software, it will be appropriate (Outten, 2007). After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email that was sent from his personal email account using a company computer, Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Although Joe, as any employee, has the right to privacy and the company has the responsibility to respect it, he also has the responsibility to respect the company policies. He has taken full responsibility for such an action since the e-mail was sent using his account. Joe was fully aware of the steps to be taken to address customers in case of any complaints, so he will be fined for being careless in his action and acting irresponsibly (Muh, 2001). Regarding the case of the department supervisor’s requesting approval to fire his secretary for insubordination, firing the secretary will not only be unethical but also unfair. This falls under the exception of additional tort-based claim within the employment-at-will doctrine. This may cause emotional stress to the secretary. Although approving the dismissal of the secretary will not lead to any legal tussle since emotional and psychological abuse cannot establish liability in a court of law, such an action is unethical. Therefore, the best option will be to take a disciplinary action by the supervisor. Also in regard to Anna’s boss refusing to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wanting to fire her for being absent without permission, applying utilitarianism ethics I would give Anna a chance to further explain her behavior, and if it is found that she is on the wrong side, then a disciplinary action would be more appropriate than firing her (Arnow-Richman, Glynn, & Sullivan, 2007). The above unique cases clearly show the application of employment-at-will policy, its exceptions and the use of ethical and legal thinking in decision making. They also show the importance of whistle blower policy in any organization since it gives employees security in that they can report wrongdoings without fear of victimization. With this security established, the employees will prefer to report any illegal undertakings internally rather than externally, hence giving the company a chance to deal with the affairs appropriately, reducing the risk of bad publicity. A good whistleblower policy should clearly define what type of acts need to be reported. This is to prevent reporting of petty issues that can be dealt with at lower management levels. Also, the issues to be reported should be those that involve breaking of companies’ regulations or public policy. It should also clearly define the channels to be followed when reporting any wrongdoing. This will avoid information getting into the wrong hands who may use it for blackmail instead of taking the necessary action. The policy should also have general regulations that protect the whistleblowers (Outten, 2007). Therefore, for any company aiming to reduce scuffles between the management and employees, it should adopt a good whistle blower policy, follow the employment-at-will doctrine together with the exceptions, and try as much as possible to use utilitarianism in decision making. In as much as both the common law and the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine exist, the presumptions still remain a very important feature in many organizations. An employee may have a lot of claims, but it may be hard to prove them. Apart from that, the claims may be not recognized in some jurisdictions since the interpretation of the protections and exceptions in the common law may be misconstrued. References Arnow-Richman, S. R., Glynn, T. P., & Sullivan, C. A. (2007). Employment law: Private ordering and its limitations. New York: Aspen Publishers. Johnson, J., & Wall Jr., K. J. (2006, December). Colorado’s lawful activities statute: Balancing employee privacy and the rights of employers. Colorado Lawyer. Muh, C. J. (2001). The Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions. Monthly Labor Review, 124(1), 3–11. Outten, W. N. (2007). Litigation and administrative practice course handbook series. New York: Practicing Law Institute. Stone, K. V. (2007). Revisiting the at-will employment doctrine: Imposed terms, implied terms, and the normative world of the workplace. Industrial Law Journal, 36(1), 84–101. Read More