Introduction
Traditionally, employment relationships have generally been governed by the common law doctrine of employment at will. In the nineteenth-century American common law, the employment-at-will doctrine became the norm. The at-will-doctrine holds that unless the parties expressly agree in particular duration, the employment relationship can be served by either employer or the employee at any time and for any reason.
According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, however, there are major exceptions to Employment-at-Will including implied contract exception; policy exception and convention of good faith and fair dealing (Muhl, 2001). Employment at will is basically a voluntary and indefinite employment for the employer and the employee. Employees, however, have the right to quit their jobs anytime they want to for any reason.
#1st Scenario: John
The first scenario is John’s, who decided to post a rant on a Facebook page and criticized an essential customer of the company, this behavior is highly unethical and very unprofessional. Despite the issue that was between John and the client, to criticize openly any client would definitely lead to termination of the contract. In this case, the at-will-doctrine would be essential in defending the employer. However, the employee would not be successful in filing a wrongful termination case.
Currently, most things are done through social media when it comes to communication such as Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn among other social sites that receive a million posts each day. Employees are limited to particular rights when posting on social media, for example being in a position to discuss work related issues and wages; however, their communication has to be between at least two people and not simply a single individual, for instance, a back and forth conversation wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Because of the constant use of social media, the National Labor Relation Board revised its laws in order to address the scope of social media. The recent regulation states “using social media can be a form of “protected concerted” activity (Solomon, 2011). Anyone has the right to address work-related issues and share information in regards to payments, benefits as well as the condition of work with co-workers in their social media platforms.
However, individual gripping in regards to other aspects of work is not a concerned activity.” It is essential therefore for the employee to avoid ‘ranting’ on social media. To avoid such, the company will have to put in place an official code of conduct policy which covers even things done on social media. This is to be addressed to the employee during the time he or she is hired. This action would protect the employer in most cases with the exception of when a state has an exception of at-will-doctrine.
#2nd Scenario: Bill
An essential concept in the scenario is “company-issued BlackBerry,” which makes the phone the company’s property and for this reason, a subject that requires monitoring and auditing whenever necessary. Bill should consider the BlackBerry offered to him as a privilege and one which can be inspected by the company at any time; there should be no exception of privacy. Normally, occasional and brief personal use of a company’s equipment is property is acceptable provided that an increased amount of time or in case it is not properly used.
Running someone’s business is not based in terms of briefly or occasionally terms. Bill does not have any protection under the at-will-doctrine. Currently, various organizations issue BlackBerry phones and laptops to their employees, purposely to balance their work and life relationship; however, the employer advice the employee that personal use with the equipment is not recommended (Sprague & Fournier, 2013).
According to the scenario, I am not certain if Bill had received such policy recommendation; however, at most I believe the first step would not be terminating Bill, but providing a piece of advice to Bill that using company cell phones for personal use is not advice at all. Despite the personal expenses that would have been charged as a result of Bill’s correspondence would have required repaying the organization.
The supervisor of Bill should have mad sue that Bill was well informed of the company’s policies in reads to company equipment. In case he never received such advice at the time the phone was being issued, it would be appropriate to receive it now, keep a close look for any additional misappropriate use of the cell phone and determine the course of action in case any further misconducts are realized. The exceptions set under the at-will-doctrine are not included in his case because the evidence would imply legal liabilities at the time of dismissal.
#3rd Scenario: Anna
In Anna’s case, her boss denies signing her a leave request for jury duty and she is supposed to be fired due to absence without consent. Anna in this scenario has every right within the at-will-doctrine than her employer. Where, in case her employer chose to file a case against her, it would not be a successful win for one side.
According to Leave Laws, an employer is not expected to pay the employee for the time they spend providing responses to the jury summon or serving a jury. An employer cannot discharge or be responsible for any action against an employee who receives or responds to a jury summon or for serving on a jury in case the employer has provided reasonable notice of the jury service.
An employee summoned may not be required by an employee to shows up for jury duty four or more hours in a day, which includes time for traveling and beginning work shifts that start at 5:00 pm on the day when he is to show up for jury (Summers, 2000). When firing Anna, the employer will be surely violating public policy which is recognized by the state.
However, the scenario does not provide a clear reason for why Anna’s manager would deny her request of leaving to undertake her jury duty. Nevertheless, all managers have a responsibility to be informed of the laws to apply in the state where they live, and jury obligation is regarded as a legal service, and in case an individual is not excused officially, the court has the legal rights to issue a warrant for arrest. Certainly, in case this was a court issue, the employer would not have won the case.
Conclusion
The highlighted scenarios involve at-will-doctrine, and I suggest that the employment at-will-doctrine is beneficial to both employees and their employers. The employer is granted the rights to fire an employee without particular reasons, with the exception of limitations according to the at-will-doctrine of a state. The employee, on the other hand, is granted the rights of leaving the organization for no particular reasons or reprimand, assuming a contract that states otherwise, is not yet presented.
References
Summers, C. W. (2000). Employment at will in the United States: The divine right of employers. U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L., 3, 65.
Muhl, C. J. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Monthly Lab. Rev., 124, 3.
Solomon, L. E. (2011). National Labor Relations Board.
Sprague, R., & Fournier, A. E. (2013). Online Social Media and the End of the Employment-at-Will Doctrine.
