Human Resource Dilemmas
It is evident from Timothy’s Reverson’s case that the employment practices of Cameron Lake boat Rentals are authoritative. The company has imposed an authoritative control over the working conditions of the workers as evidenced by it compelling its workers to sign the employment arbitration agreement. As it can be seen, Timothy Reverson was dismissed for the fact that he claimed a pay rise. Workers in the company can do very little to fight for their rights as they are bound by the resolution by arbitration. It was illegal and unethical for the company to terminate his employment based on the payment dispute as the agreement is void due to lack of signing of the agreement by the worker. Timothy claims that he never signed any such agreement and yet the company fired him. The company, in as much as it had an employment arbitration agreement, should not have fired the worker if at all he never signed the agreement. Lack of signing of the arbitration agreement meant that the agreement could not be put into effect. Given that he was also from the Black American community, the move by the company could be seen as discrimination under Title VII as the company had more than 15 workers. It is also clear that the actions of the company were in retaliation of the suit leveled against them by the employee. This move by the company is hence illegal and unethical.
For Timothy Reverson, first he did not sign the employment agreement forms and hence the employment arbitration agreement is not enforceable to his case. It is a requirement for employers to ensure that mandatory arbitration agreements to be signed by all employees. This was not the case in Timothy’s case and hence a strong point to advance his case. It was illegal for the company to fire him as he had not signed the mandatory arbitration documents. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination of any form for employers with 15 or more employees. Given that he is a man of the African-American descent, it could be possible that he was fired because of his race and thus has a strong case under Title VII. Additionally, the agreement could be ruled unconsciable by the court. The Supreme Court in Armendariz v. Foundation of Health Psychcare Services, Inc 24 U.S 83 (2000) found employment arbitration agreements unconsciable if they are one-sided and compel an employee to abide by them. In the case, the employers had too much bargaining power hence compelling the workers to sign the employment arbitration agreement without a thorough examination. Similarly, Timothy may have continued working because he had no any other option. The company, on the other hand, with employment arbitration agreement gives them the right to take any disciplinary actions against an employee if they violate the agreement. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 allows the company to arbitrate disputes and hence it acted according to law in solving the dispute over pay rise with Timothy Reverson. The Supreme Court in Circuit City Stores v. Adams 532 U.S 105 (2001) ruled that employers can enforce all employment arbitration agreements and hence Cameron Boat Lake Rental acted within the law. In this case, the company was in a dispute with the employee over a pay rise and hence obligated to take the case to arbitration. Also forced arbitration gives the company the right to apply the agreement to the entire workforce hence allowing them to take measures against them. It is evident that Timothy decided to continue with the job even though he was knowledgeable of the new employment policies of the company.
The company in this case could have employed alternative disciplinary actions given that the worker had not signed the employment arbitration agreement. It is pretty clear that the disciplinary actions that the company employed were illegal and unethical. The company should have communicated the agreement to the entire staff and ensure that each and every one of them signed it (Hirsch, Secunda & Bales, 2013). This way they would have avoided the lawsuit and in the first place as they would have the authority to take any disciplinary actions. They should also have employed alternative disciplinary actions such as suspension in Timothy Reverson’s case as he had not signed the agreement. Alternative disciplinary actions would have prevented the lawsuit (Lockton, 2006). The broader implications for the situation are that it will incur huge financial losses by first compensating Mr. Reverson and then losing profitability due to a damaged brand name, image and reputation. As a result of the case, many customers will lose their trust of the company and hence move to alternative companies, thus driving the company to losses. The workers will also be disoriented leading to resignations and lack of motivation that will affect productivity. A human resource director might suggest progressive discipline be incorporated in the company’s corporate culture before moving to arbitration. Since Timothy did not sign the agreement but seeking to continue the job even with the new employment policies, a wise move would be to introduce progressive disciplinary actions such as pay cuts and suspensions among others. To add on that, they may offer Timothy his job which will lead to a dismissal of the motion?
References
Armendariz v. Foundation of Health Psychcare Services, Inc., , 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000)
Circuit City Stores v. Adams 532 U.S. 105 (2001)
Hirsch, J. M., Secunda, P. M., & Bales, R. A. (2013). Understanding employment law.
Lockton, D. (2006). Employment law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
