Question 1: Competence, Skills, and Abilities
The employment-at-will doctrine permits employers to terminate their employees` contract regardless of whether there is a reason or not. That notwithstanding, the employee- employer relationship is not so cut and dry such that the employer can automatically terminate Jennifer`s employment contract. Jennifer is unable to pick up the basic job functions. As a result, on the basis of competence, ability, and skills, the manager`s action to terminate her as the first course of action would be easily understood. The employment-at-will Doctrine permits that Jennifer should be terminated without considering any preventive or disciplinary measures. Nevertheless, various exemptions to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine are popularly accepted, and the manager may have to consider a number of steps before terminating the employee (Falcone, 2002).
Some of these exemptions include ‘implied contract’ where if an employer makes a promise to an employee regarding job security either orally or through a written statement, then that promise is enforceable. In the case of Toussaint v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the court held that the promise of job security from the employer from the employer was enforceable; as a result, the employees claim for wrongful discharge was legally enforceable. The same exception may be applied in Jennifer’s case because given that the employer has trained her on the job functions, it may well be implied that the employee has given her a certain grace period to learn the job functions before any action relating to termination of employment can be taken. Given the validity of this exemption, the manager should ensure that the duration of training, as well as the knowledge and skills taught to Jennifer are adequately documented alongside the employee`s consent to the terms of the training program (Falcone, 2002). This will be evidence that both the manager and Jennifer had similar expectations as to what Jennifer should be able to accomplish after a given period.
The second exemption that may be applicable is the ‘covenant of good faith’. Under this, there is a specific ‘just cause’ standard for which employers should be held accountable. In Jennifer`s case, it implies that if the manager is to terminate her, then he should be able to demonstrate that in deed Jennifer’s shortcomings justified her termination. Given that Jennifer is not in a position to execute her job functions, the manager should convene a face-to-face conversation with her to find out if there are any challenges she is facing, and exploit possibilities of helping her to perform better, but with a warning that if she fails to improve she will be terminated. According to Falcone, (2002), this conversation should be documented as part of Jennifer’s file. Such documentation will act as evidence that employer went beyond the company`s policies to assist the employee.
Question 2: Management, Behavior, and Performance
In a situation where the employee throws tantrums and appears to be threatening to file a law suit in the event that the employer dismisses her for violating the company`s attendance policy, it may be indispensable to convene a meeting between the employee and two senior executives in the company. During the meeting, one executive will review the company’s policy on attendance and behavior. Just like all corrective discussions with the employee, the proceedings from the meeting should be documented and be used as a disciplinary warning. Given that it may not be possible to know with certainty what the employee implies when she says that she knows what do to in the event that she is dismissed from work, such documentation will protect the company from any legal liability if she claims she was wrongfully terminated from work. This scenario highlights the importance of employee handbooks. An employee handbook essentially outlines the company`s policy on attendance, in addition to acceptable and non-acceptable workplace conduct. When an employee appends his or her signature to the handbook, he agrees to abide by the policies and standards contained therein, and it can be adduced as evidence that in deed the employee was aware that she was violating these policies.
Question 3: Labor and Laws
Two scenarios are evident; in the first scenario, the employee appears to be attempting to unionize her colleagues. In this regard, no legal disciplinary action can be taken against him, except for the fact that on some occasions she attempts to unionize her colleagues during working hours. In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act states that it is within the rights of employees to join or form unions. Employees are also allowed to discuss matters related to union membership during non-working hours and in non-work related areas. For example, employees can engage in union discussions while relaxing at the employee lounge during lunch break. The best way to address this scenario is to bring to the attention of all employees that they are not allowed to discuss matters related to union membership during the official working hours (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). That notwithstanding, it would be illegal to discipline or dismiss an employee on grounds of supporting unionization. The company should also sensitize the employees on the implications of unionizing. While the law requires employers to allow their employees join unions, employers are free to share information with the employees on how unionization may affect the firm, the number of people employed, and the benefits employees receive. For the second scenario, when an employee takes a day off from work without seeking permission, then dismissal appears to be the best alternative. Dismissals arising from the failure of an employee to show up at work, and do not notify his or her employer that he or she will be absent from work are too common. Some companies may be reluctant to dismiss an employee owing to the fact that there was a religious holiday. However, this is no excuse in the present scenario because employees were given the alternative of seeking approval from management in the event that they required a day off for a noble reason. In the event that an employee fails to exercise such option, they should be dismissed for deliberately violating the company`s policy, and not because of the reason for absence (religious holiday). Such dismissal would be fully justified (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
Question 4: Policies and Procedures
In the present case, the employee and her supervisor have consensual relationship. This is a blatant violation of the company`s policy for which the employee read and signed at the time when she was accepting the job offer. A formal disciplinary warning should be given to the employee in question, and where possible be transferred to a different position where she is not under her current supervisor with whom they are now in a relationship. Some firms have different teams doing the same thing but under different supervisors. If the company in this case has a similar setup, moving the employee to a different team will be a plausible option (DelPo & Guerin, 2007). The fact that the supervisor is also an employee of the company, he too should be warned, and perhaps face stiffer penalty for encouraging such a relationship from a position of authority.
References
DelPo, A., & Guerin, L. E. (2007). Dealing with problem employees: a legal guide. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Falcone, P. (2002). The hiring and firing question and answer book. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and ethics in the business environment. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
