Summary
In the United States, employment relationships are presumed to be at will. This is a representation of the most global countries that do not allow employment to be at will. Most nations in the globe permit employers to send away employees only for cause. Some of the reasons outlined for the retention at-will include respect for contract freedom, employer awe, as well as the belief that both employers and employees errand an at-will employment relationship over job security.
At-will means that an employer can terminate employees any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no basis without any legal liability. Also, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for no reason without any legal consequences. At-will may mean that the employer can amend employment terms without notice and no consequences would befall the individual. For instance, an employer is allowed to change wages, terminate benefits, as well as reduce paid time off (Blanpain, 2009). Following its unadulterated nature the at-will rule in the United States exposes employees to sudden and arbitrary dismissal; a limited work schedule based on employer’s needs as well as non-predetermined payment and benefits reduction (Autor, 2000).
However, the at-will doctrine is default and can be rectified through contract. For instance, a contract may offer a given employment term that dictates termination for cause only. In most cases, U.S. companies only negotiate individual employment agreements with employees of high level only. Agreements on collective bargains usually dictate that represented employees may only be terminated for cause. In this case, cause may be a set of reasons such as employee misconduct, poor performance by employees, or economic factor. An employment contract may mainly summarize the situations or employee actions that may attract termination for cause (Ballam, 2000).
However the influence of at-will doctrine principles may be exempted following harsh consequences that are likely to follow. There are three main common law exceptions which are public policy, implied contract, as well as implied good faith covenant. Following the complexity of the at-will presumption it is extremely hard for employees to prove that their circumstances are found within the named exceptions.
John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.
As an employee to the company, John has the responsibility of evaluating issues as they take place. This means that John has a right to look into the customer’s conduct. However, he did not use the right means to report the ill conduct of the customer. Exposing the customer to the public ruins his image, which is an illegal act for John. In such a case, the employer may terminate his contract with John since many customers may run away from such ill acts.
Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting.
Before resolving such a case, it would be wise to understand Jim’s occupation in the organization. However, one’s position does not give Jim a chance to negatively influence individuals. One person’s dissatisfaction is not a representative of the dissatisfaction of all individuals. However, the law fights for proper compensation for work done. This means that the law may exempt Jim from losing his job following a ruling on the basis of proper remuneration for employees.
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two (2) years and portraying her bosses as “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”
It is right for Ellen to note that there exists difference on bonus between him and the CEO. Going to the internet to seek support indicates irresponsibility for the employee. The CEO is the senior most employee of the organization. Therefore, any force against him may be countered through being fired by the at-will doctrine.
Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side.
Coming into terms of being bought a blackberry phone by the organization, there is indication that the management cares completely of the well of its employees. Using the phone for commercial purposes does not have any ill influence to the operations of an individual. It is only maximization of resources. Therefore, Bill should not apply any at-will exemptions to cover the action adopted by the organization. in such a case, Bill should not sue the organization.
The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white stripes to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed keylogger software on all company computers.
In most cases, organizations support official form of clothing. Individuals are supposed to put on clothes according to their will and it is not allowed for employees to use fashion to humiliate a given decision. Secretaries are allowed to put on black-and white stripes clothes if they do not have any intention to challenge the organizational management (Blanpain, 2009). However, their move must be challenged through extended punishment that is not really termination of contract.
After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy.
It was the role of the organization to punish Joe following his indiscipline status. The organization did that to protect its business interests, which is an extremely fundamental element. However, threats by Joe to sue the organization following privacy invasion may not bear significant meaning or weight. For the organization to initially sue Joe the email remains core. This case will in most cases, be dismissed since Joe is not hurt in any way.
One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his secretary for insubordination. Since the secretary has always received glowing reviews, you call her into your office and determine that she has refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss.
Leaders are usually entrusted their positions in different organization to guard the interests of the organizations and ensure that excellent is marked. As the C.E.O personal integrity for employees and respect of duty is paramount. Every C.E.O would wish to work with honest employees. Therefore, a secretary guarding her integrity as well as protecting the company from internal theft should not be punished in bid they refused to sign false financial statement (Blanpain, 2009). The secretary shows an element of honest and should be retained in the organization. Instead the supervisors should be sent home.
Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission.
Organizations will always have situations where the employees tend to handle job grudges through extending them at work. Before a punishment is declared, the mistake done must be stated first. Being absent in job for one day does not ruin all the good things that Anna did in the past. Therefore, immediate termination of contract between the company and Anna dictates poor at-will doctrine by the boss. Anna should remain but warned to involve the boss when she thinks she will be absent at job.
Whistleblower policy
The CEO should adopt the whistleblower policy. This policy would be vital in extending the eyes of the CEO at points where he may not reach. Employees will be their own watchmen as they will monitor the activities of each other with the aim of earning status in the organization. In such an organization where there is no mutual agreement between employees, whistle blower is significant as it will help guard possible situations that may arise from the disagreements. Since employees behave and act as they wish, the CEO will always get someone informing him of act and the other, which means security for the organization is guaranteed (Miller, 2000).
Elements of the policy
One of the elements that should be involved in whistleblower policy is honest. This dictates that all that will be reported is the truth. Employees should not use the policy to resolve differences. It also prevents false allegations that would lead to extensive punishment for the reported employee. The second element is timeliness. It is right when an issue is reported immediately it takes place than reporting later. Immediate report contains facts while delayed reporting may be characterized with adjustments to suit a given situation. The policy must also have proper definition of responsibility (Miller, 2000).This means that employees must understand each other on the basis of their duties in the organizations so that reporting of cases as they arise may be easy.
Conclusion
At-will doctrine is a major tool in the business world. It mainly defines the hiring and firing processes in an organization. Organizations must possess excellent skills that aid in ensuring performance in dealing with differences or various situations that require leadership intervention. Whistleblower policy should always be considered in bid to deal with various challenges that may arise from management of an organization. Honest, timeliness and responsibility are major elements that may make the policy ultimately fundamental in an organization.
References
Autor, D. H. (2000). Outsourcing at will: unjust dismissal doctrine and the growth of temporary help employment. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ballam, D. A. (2000). Employment-At-Will: The Impending Death Of A Doctrine.American Business Law Journal, 37(4), 653-687.
Blanpain, R. (2009). Employment policies and multilevel governance. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business ;.
Busse, R. C. (2005). Fired, laid off or forced out: a complete guide to severance, benefits, and your rights when you're starting over. Naperville, Il.: Sphinx Pub., An Imprint of Sourcebooks.
Miller, J. (2000). Whistleblower protection review. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General.
