Law and Ethics in Business
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Date
Law and Ethics in Business
Introduction
The employment at will doctrine exists in the United State employment laws that states that either party in the employment relationship can severe the relationship with no liability, so long as there was no definite contract for a definite term of employment governing the relationship, and that the employee does not belong to any union or bargaining group.
Skills, Competence, and Abilities
According to Stone, (2007), the employees’ skills, competencies, and abilities are to test in this scenario. She is unable to perform as per the standards of the employer, even after the employer has trained her for three months on the computer applications relevant to her performance at work. The firm is legally allowed to to fire her based on the employment at will doctrine, because their is no apparent reason why she cannot be productive and efficient in completing her tasks. In most cases the descriptive requirements of the competencies required are always written in the job profile, and qualified by the level at which the job should be performed. She does not have any disability that cannot enable her to perform her duties. For the employer to reduce any risks, or liability on its part, is by modifying the contract to include situations or employee actions that would lead to termination for cause.
In this case the reason or cause for termination is poor performance, which provides the legal implications for the employee verses the employer. The employer is free to fire the employee without fearing legal process to be found liable for breach of any contract. This particular case has no exceptions to the employment at will doctrine (Budd, 2004).
Management, Behaviour, and Performance
The employees’ behaviours are against the behaviour policies of the company, such as the company late policy of which the employee is aware of. Her rage and kind of response when criticized is not responsible at all. The company is not particularly free of incurring legal liability in the case of the employee’s outbursts when confronted. There could be many factors that make her behave in this manner, such as psychological factors in her upbringing, her emotional maturity, her values, and her personality. Given that she asserts that she knows her rights and what to do, maybe she has seen some loophole in the employer’s handbooks, policies, and practices. But for the case of coming late to work, the employer is free to terminate her employment, because this is well stated in the company’s late policy. Employees must arrive on time to work, follow orders, accept limited freedom of speech, and conform to a host of regulations (Glynn, Arnow, &, Sullivan, 2007).
The legal implications for the employer verses employee relationship is that the employer is free to give orders to the employee who must be followed, the employee has limited speech, so she should control the kind of words she uses to respond to the criticism. There would be no wrongful termination on the part of the employer in relation to the employee reporting to work late. For her outbursts, the employee may actually know something from her undergraduate on the exceptions to the employment at will doctrine and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. But public policy does not protect the employee as the company has not violated any public interest. The employer preventive measures to avoid legal liabilities are having concrete evidence on the employee’s late reporting, and only to stick to this cause for termination. The exceptions may only arise in the case of the employee’s outburst when confronted (Don, 2007).
Labour and Laws
The employee took a day off without the management’s consent. From this point of view, the company has the right to fire the employee. Because, the management had clearly notified all the employees, that they were not allowed to take off without prior management’s approval. In this perspective, it is the employee who is liable for dismissal, because, the employee could have informed the management of her religious commitments on this particular day that fell during the tax season, which is very important to the company. The management could not have discriminated her on religious grounds, and may have allowed her to attend her religious holiday.
On the other hand, Tichy, (1997), argues that the management should be a little cautious, as she has been trying to gain the support of the other employees to organize or form a workers union to protect themselves. Unfortunately, there is no labour union for accountants. If she manages to convince her fellow workers to form this union, then if the management fires her, the company would risk incurring liability depending on the apparent ruling of the courts. The legal implications of this scenario on the employer verses employee relationship is that the employer can fire the employee on the basis of on call work schedule that depends on the employers need that all employees be present on the day of the tax season. This leaves the employee as the vulnerable party for dismissal.
The employee can also be dismissed on the basis of not following management’s orders to be present at work on that particular day. The exceptions to the employment at will in this case would be statutory provisions that prohibit the discharge for other than good cause after a designated probationary period. The employee has the right to challenge a dismissal in court or an arbitrator. The employee can also challenge that she was not given any warning before the termination, and that she is a first offender. The employer can protect themselves of incurring a legal liability based on implied contracts by using a clear and unambiguous disclaimer on written materials stating that that its policies and procedures do not create contractual rights (Budd, 2004).
Policies and Procedures
This is little bit tricky case in the sense that it is the supervisor who first approached the employee for the dating escapades. The firm would be on the cross roads to determine how exactly the relationship started between the employee and the supervisor. From the supervisors part, the company faces some risk of incurring legal liability. The management should move cautiously in this scenario before terminating the employee, by conclusively investigating the nature of the relationship.
The company should not be allowed to terminate to fire her based on the employment at will doctrine. It is the supervisor who is the main culprit, because he consistently pressurized the employee to take her out on dates, which she initially refused. This could be a case of intimidation from the part of the supervisor. The employee was later convinced by her girlfriend to accept the supervisor’s advances, which she later began having consensual relationship with the supervisor. This was definitely wrong on the part of the employee who was well aware of the company policy which prevented employees from dating their supervisor, and was provided with the employee handbook with the written policy. On that perspective the company has the right to fire the employee (Glynn, Arnow, &, Sullivan, 2007).
There are many legal implications on the relationship between the employee and the employer. The company fears no liabilities if the employee cannot prove that it is the supervisor who started the whole idea of getting into a consensual relationship, the burden of prove that lies on the employee, is also very tricky if her girlfriend can be a witness, to defend her that it is the supervisor who started pressurizing her. The supervisor also risks losing his job if the employee can prove his intensions. The employer should have some preventive measures in place to avoid incurring a legal liability. The evidence of the clause that prohibits employees to have consensual relationships should be very clear on the nature of the relationships. The employer should also have concrete evidence of the existing relationship between the employee and the supervisor, and that actual nature of their relationship. Therefore, the company should conduct thorough investigations before rushing to tackle action on terminating the services of the employee. The exceptions that exist in this scenario can be interpreted as, Additional Tort Based Claims Limiting at will employment. The particular tort would be Intentional Interference with a contract. This is a claim that the employee may allege that the supervisor induced or intimidated her to a consensual relationship with ulterior motives to influence her dismissal
REFERENCES
Glynn, P, Arnow-R, &, Sullivan, C. (2007). Employment Law: Private Ordering and Its Limitations. New York: Aspen Publishers,
Stone, W, (2007) “Revisiting the At-Will Employment Doctrine: Imposed Terms, Implied Terms, and the Normative World of the Workplace,” Industrial Law Journal
Don M, (2007). The [Missing] Ethical Development of the Strategic Leaders of the Army Profession for the 21st Century,” conference paper, XIII Annual Strategy Conference, Carlisle, PA, April 10, p. 2.
Tichy N, (1997). The Leadership Engine, New York: Harper Business, p. 26.
Budd W, (2004). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice Ithaca: Cornell University Press, , 86-88.
