The employment at will doctrine dictates that, employers are at volition to decide when and under what parameters to dismiss a worker. In this context, employers are at no obligation by the state to bring on board the reasons that actuated their actions into place. However, it should be noted that, the actions by the employers should not be illegal. In the United States of America, the doctrine was adopted so as to override on the circumstances that were in place in as far as the position of employers was concerned (Miller, 2009). In this regard, employers merged up and came up with the position that was put in place so as to reduce the negative effects that were being directed to employers by government regulations. On the same note the doctrine dictates that, workers can decide whom to work for at whichever time. Similarly, employees had the volition to decide to bring to an end of employment contracts that had been entered between them and their bosses.
In a nutshell, it is true to say that, the employment at will doctrine was put into place so as to advocate for personal choices that come along the employment environment (Ford, 2010). It can also be adduced that the scheme targeted to boost on the advocating for human rights. It should be regarded and emphasized upon that the doctrine has exceptions to its effect. In this context, illegal actions by either employers or employees are not protected by the doctrine. An employer or employee deliberating on the cones of the same doctrines is punishable by law. It is also crucial to note that, the employment at will doctrine does not have rules or specifics that guide its applicability; it is dependent on the thoughts and decisions of employers in matters that touch on their property and businesses. Its relevance is going to be manifested in the following case studies;
In the case where John posted in his Facebook account criticizing the most cherished customer to the company, will dismiss him about the following instances; by the act of making such a post, he had gone against the expectations of his company. As an employee, he was supposed to engage in profiling activities for the company. However, his deed was a misnomer in as far as the development facets of the company are concerned. The manager under the application of the employment at will doctrine, he is justified to dismiss an employee. On the other hand, in order for the company to solve the issue created by John and move ahead towards its development, he should be made to withdraw his post from Facebook and make immediate apologies. In this case, there is existed not exception to the doctrine hence it was rational to have it on board. In the event public policy dictates that ideas expressed o social media such as Facebook do not receive the appreciation of being relied upon, the dismissal of John can be deemed illegal. Value theory center stages this instance.
In the case of an email sent by Jim to other employees concerning a planned boycott in attending meetings, I as an astute manager deliberating on the parameters guiding the employment at will doctrine dismiss him. In this context, Jim was engaging in activities that were a target towards the de-development of the company that he was working for. It was upon the discretion for the employer to dismiss Jim due to the inciting character that he assumed. It is a matter of logic that, the actions by Jim are likely to place the company at Jeopardy. The most rational thing the chief executive officers can do it to occasion another meeting with all the employees. In the meeting, which should be held in the absentia of Tim, it should be discussed that the charges mentioned by Tim were not in bad faith. Justifications on the same should be tabled before the employees so that employees are aware of what happens. In this regard, the actions of Tim are not in any way inclined to the Montana good cause rule. His intentions were far beyond to be described to be in good faith.
In the position of the blog started by Ellen on defaming the chief executive officer, I am of the position that she should not be dismissed. Her actions are sincere and along the Montana good cause rule. Her blog highlighted the scams and issues that were a manifest in as far as matters of leadership in her company was concerned. The most appropriate decision that should have been adopted to counter the reported comments in her blog was to summon all stakeholders, workers and the public in general meeting that shall center on highlighting why things were the way they were in the context of promotions.
On the other hand, I will dismiss Bill from the company. He had decided to violate the work give to him by engaging in activities that purposed to boost his endeavors. In this regard, his action of using the company’s machines and tools for his own good meant that he was at no point significant to the company. He is not protected by any exception to the employment at-will doctrine. I will recommend that that; a mechanism is devised to incorporate ways and schemes that made it a must for people to engage in activities assigned for them to the conclusion. In this case, supervisors can be advocated for. In this regard, it is for the sake of Value theory that looks at the positive notch in an instance.
In the actions done by the secretaries by wearing striped clothes and engaging it, picketing I will not advocate for their dismissal since they were soliciting for their rights that were under violation. The peaceful move by the secretaries is further protected by public policy. Public policy emerges as a relevant exception to the general rule that guides the employment at will doctrine. In my opinion, I am of the position that, the utilitarian theory center stages this phenomenon. Their issues should be addressed in for of meeting that should be purposed to solve and live up to their grievances.
In the event of Joe threatening to sue the company for a breach in his privacy entitlements, I will not dismiss him. In this case, his action was protected by public policy that overrides on the provisions stated in the employment at will doctrine. In this case, the best thing a company can do is to let Joe exercise his legitimate right to file a case in the courts of the land. In this context, the action that I opine for will be in according to the utilitarian theory. At the same time, I will ensure that Joe is explained to issues accordingly so that he understands the parameters that guided the operations of the company.
In the case whereby a supervisor accuses employee over insubordinations and threatens to dismiss her, I ardently state that, she should not be dismissed. In this regard, the ensuing circumstances that underlie the insubordinations are along blatant illegalities. The insubordination instance was founded upon her failure to write documents that were illegal. The most ethical and rational position that can be used to adequately canvass this situation is through recalling of the supervisor. It is in regards to the value theory.
I will not recommend for the dismissal of Anne. In her case, she had acted in light of Montana good cause rule by requesting leave from her employer. The Utilitarian theory supports the idea that the boss should be placed at a scrutinizing position.
I am of the position that the Chief Executive Officer should incorporate a whistle blower in the company. In such a case, the whistle blower will be responsible for the actions of managers. In this regard, it will be warning the signal to all the managers in as far as their mandate is concerned. On the same note, a whistle blower will ensure that employees are well protected, and their rights are acknowledged (Kohn, 2011).
The whistleblower policy should entail the following; a manager should document all activities and decisions that he engages in on behalf of the country. Secondly, the Whistleblower policy should have a directive that all managers must undergo a periodic cycle of two years that should be oriented to vet them. Lastly, the whistle blower policy should have targets set for managers so that, in their lines of duty all their actions fall relevantly to their designated roles (DIANE, 2010).
References
DIANE Publishing Company. (2010). Whistleblower Protection: Reasons for Whistleblower Complainants' Dissatisfaction Need to Be Explored. New York: DIANE Publishing.
Ford, K. (2010). Fundamentals of Employment Law. New York: American Bar Association.
Kohn, M. (2011). Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Miller, R. (2009). The Legal Environment Today: Business In Its Ethical, Regulatory, E-Commerce, and Global Setting. Chicago: Cengage Learning.
