Employment-at-Will Doctrine Essay

Jennifer is a recent college graduate who has been hired by an accounting firm. In the short metre she has been employed with the firm she has discovered a fare of looks she feels could be inappropriate regarding the mesh-at-will doctrine as well as some liabilities with the employer. She has brought this up only because she feels obligated to report the behaviors in which she has witnessed and wants to ensure she wont be held liable for not informing the management team (LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and incorporate Governance, 2012).Jennifer identified four categories of questionable behavior which are 1) skills, competence and abilities, 2) management, behavior, and performance, 3) tug legalitys, and 4) policies and procedures. The each of the four categories mentioned above will be discussed in how they apply to the Employment-At-Will ism as well as the liability of the employer. Skills, Competence, and AbilitiesIn the first scenario, the employee isnt able to learn the necessar y computer applications for the job in which she was hired even later on a few months of training and support. When the executive program tries to find place what the problem is, the employee consistently tells her boss that she is a good worker and a genius and she goes on to say that he does not appreciate her (LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance, 2012). A legal and binding doctrine known as the Employment-At-Will teaching gives the comp whatever grounds to terminate this employee.The Employment-At-Will Doctrine eitherows companies a broad spectrum to terminate employees for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all (Halbert, T. , & Ingulli, E. , p46, 2012). The same doctrine provides the employee the freedom to leave the job without notice, for any reason, good or bad. The employee doesnt fork up to have a reason at all to leave the position in which they were hired for, they so-and-so just leave chthonian the same doctrine.We could even change the scena rio slightly in stating this particular employee could actually be doing a good job or maybe the employee could argue they were doing no better or worse than other people who had the same job responsibilities therefore resulting in a reasonable person coming to the conclusion the supervisor or management was picking on that particular employee but even considering those sight changes to the scenario, the company would still be in their rights to terminate the employee under the Employment-At-Will Doctrine (Zins, 2012).The issue at hand here is the employee in question is not performing in the way the company had hoped and there has been sufficient time provided in the employers mind for the individual to learn and become proficient in the necessary tasks. Management, Behavior and Performance In this particular event the employee occasionally abound into a rage when criticized or questioned concerning the behavior of frequent tardiness. When her boss and other staff members identif y this behavior and verify its a regular particular they attempt to address the issue and remind her of the companys late indemnity.The employees response is that she knows her rights and what to do if she is wrongfully discharged. She also goes on to say she took a business law class in undergrad school and it taught her everything she needed to know about exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine and wrongful discharge in violation of macrocosm policy (LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance, 2012). In this scenario it almost have the appearance _or_ semblances like the employee was nerve-wracking to belittle her supervisors or threaten them to not pursue the tardiness issue.Its believed by this author, she was trying to draw attention away from the inappropriate behavior of being late which is what preempted the discussion in the first place. As identified in first scenario, the Employment-At-Will Doctrine gives the company the ability to terminate the employee fo r any reason. The company would be able to ensure a quick processing of this particular expiration if they could show that all the times this particular employee was late, was documented in writing. This should always be done in any given case of tardiness or un-authorized absence.The Employment-At-Will Doctrine means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except when the reason was illegal or for no reason without incurring legal liability (At-will employment overview, 2013). Under the doctrine, the employer can change the terms of the employees employment with no notice and the company would still have the right to terminate the employee. An example, although it may seem unfair would be if the employee was hired at a certain amount and the employer wanted to reduce that amount, the employer could legally do so without violating any law or rights of the employee.Once the employer reduced the pay, they could still terminate the employee and not be i n risk of breaking any laws or violating anyone rights (At-will employment overview, 2013). Labor and Laws In this scenario the employee takes an un-authorized day off from work to observe her religious holiday. This holiday falls on a day that is during tax season and the day off occurred during an incredibly vigorous period for the company.Prior to this time frame the company announced to all of its employees they were not allowed to take off during this time-frame unless they had prior management approval. Also, there is no get the picture union for accountants so the union helping the employee in this matter would not have done any good. Another issue with this employee is she talks to her co-workers during lunch breaks and sometimes during regular work hours, encouraging them to organize and form a union to protect themselves (LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance, 2012).The company has to be careful in this situation because an employee does have the right to obser ve religious holidays. The behavioral issue here is the blatant disregard for the company and fellow colleagues. The management team announced that any time off during this period would require prior approval from the management and due to the fact the employee used the religious holiday as her excuse to confirm her actions, the actions went against management direction so at a minimum the employee should be reprimanded and written-up.More than likely if she had used the direction recommended by the company if they needed time off during this time, the management team would have more than likely approved her request and then all would have been fine but it appeared the employee intentionally disobeyed the policy and used her religion as a justifiable excuse. As far as the discussion shes reservation with other employees concerning the union effectuation as long as shes having these iscussions during non-paid breaks, during non-paid lunch or after working hours she is not in viola tion of any policies, laws or regulations.In fact, in 1935 workers were guaranteed the right to organize and form unions and they could not be terminated as punishment for doing so but at the same time workers should respect the employer overflowing to not have these discussions during the times when work is needing to be done (Halbert, T. , & Ingulli, E. , p49, 2012). New state labor legislation was enacted in 2012 that reports the most active areas of state legislation.Those areas account came from child labor, equal employment opportunity, human trafficking, immigration legislation, independent contractors, wages paid, time off, unfair labor practices, and worker privacy. The factual information involving the areas mentioned above on with 20 additional areas was the result of the unused enactment and there are additional guidelines that businesses can turn to regarding some of those areas (Fitzpatrick J. Jr. , & Perine, J. L. , 2013). Policies and ProceduresThis last scenario involved a consensual blood between an employee and a supervisor where the employees supervisor consistently asks the employee out on dates and initially the employee refuses but later accepts the offer after talking to a girlfriend about the situation whereas the employee is encouraged by the friend to accept the offers. The employee identifies that during her New Employee Orientation, the facilitator informed the entire group of new employees, of the company policy which prohibited employees from dating supervisors.The employee also remembers being given an employee handbook with the written policies which also forbid such behavior but never-the-less, the employee and her supervisor still continued with their consensual relationship (LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance, 2012). In this type of behavior the company has every right to terminate both the employee and the supervisor which is exactly what should be done. The Employment-At-Will Doctrine gives the company the authority to do so and if a tumid number of company personnel are aware of the relationship it will look bad on the company if they dont handle the situation in that way.It could lead employees into believing that company supervisors are above the law and are not required to answer to the same policies that other employees are required to adhere to. The appropriate measures were given to prevent this type of behavior from happening the employees were given the policy during the New Employee Orientation as well as each employee was also given a copy of the policy by receiving an employee handbook. If the supervisor had conducted the behavior intentionally to get the employee terminated then the employee would have a legitimate argument to appeal if the supervisor wasnt terminated as well.This would be one of the exceptions to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine. The behavior on the part of the employee and the supervisor in this case was unacceptable and the appropriate action the comp any would need to take would be to terminate both employees (At-will employment overview, 2013). Conclusion Employment-at-will basically means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason and doesnt have to justify their actions unless the action were illegal or the reason feel under one of the common law exceptions.There are three common law exceptions which are public policy, implied contract and covenant of good faith. Public policy is the most widely recognized common law exception, and it protects employees against adverse employment actions that intermit a public interest. Examples of some of these might be 1) to refuse to commit perjury in a trial, 2) reporting an employers fraudulent accounting practices and 3) join the National Guard or performing jury duty (At-will employment overview, 2013).An implied contract may be legitimate just from a supervisor making an oral statement or an employer representative. An employer representative can be anyo ne who is known to be knowledgeable about the company and its employment history. An example could be if soulfulness stated, We need good people around here, youve got a job for life or We dont dismiss employees without giving them a chance to reject their behavior. These are some examples where an exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine might apply (At-will employment overview, 2013).An implied covenant of good faith has varied from requiring just cause for termination to prohibiting terminations that are made in bad faith or motivated with intent to cause harm. An example of bad faith terminations might include an employer outpouring an older employee so the company wouldnt have pay that employee retirement benefits or terminating a salesman just before they would be eligible for a large commission (At-will employment overview, 2013).