The Employment At Will Doctrine

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Summary of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Evaluation of the Scenarios
Action to limit liability
The whistleblower policy
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Whenever people secure jobs, they have an obligation to sign contracts, which are legal documents that ascertain their agreement to the company’s policies. Some employees are lucky enough to secure permanent jobs, where their employers can only fire them if they prove to be incompetent or if they make serious violations. Moreover, the employees who obtain an employment contract are on the safe side, as their employers have no right to dismiss them until the end of the contract. However, cases have occurred where employees sign the employment-at-will documents unknowingly. Hence, this paper will give a stringent analysis of the employment at will doctrine, and evaluate some eight scenarios that occurred in a mid-sized company. Furthermore, the paper will give an outlay of the whistleblower policy that enables employees to voice their pleas at the workplace.

Summary of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine

The employment at will doctrine describes a principle that guides the relationship between the employer and the employees. According to the doctrine, an employer can dismiss an employee without necessarily having a decisive reason for terminating the employment. The employment at-will doctrine also allows employees to leave their jobs without any feasible reason, or even without giving some warning. In the United States, the law assumes that all employees are employed under the at-will terms, unless one can prove otherwise. In any case, employees should keep their employment documents safe, especially if they state that their jobs are protected. Nowadays, employers are finding it difficult to write their policies in the application documents as people are becoming enlightened. However, the employment at will doctrine may appear somewhere in the employees’ manual.

Sadly, some employees understand the real meaning of their employment contracts after they have committed themselves to work for the organization. Essentially, employers can fire their employees for no viable reason and rely on the employment-at-will doctrine for protection. Employees who sign the doctrine, whether knowingly or unknowingly cannot take any legal actions against their employers. However, employees who are under the at-will terms have some protective rights. An employer cannot fire an employee using discriminating standards. Employees can sue their employers if they suspect that they were fired because of their religion, gender, or race. Secondly, an employee cannot be fired because of complaints about harassment, illegal happenings, or because of complaints regarding health and safety in the workplace. Lastly, employees have a right to obtain permissions to attend to genuine family matters, to serve in the military, to seek medical attention and heal, to vote, and to attend jury duties (Park, 2003). In case the employers decide to fire their employees for reasons related to the above-mentioned allegations, the employees can go ahead and file a case against them.

Evaluation of the Scenarios

John criticizes a customer through his Facebook account. The alleged customer happens to be among the highly valued customers of the company. This is a core reason to fire John legally, as he has no right to criticize the customer. In any case, John should not incorporate the company’s affairs with his social life. If he feels offended by the customer, he would rather follow the rightful procedures to handle the matter within the company.
Jim misleads the company’s salespeople through the allegations that bonuses have been altered, and the commissions have been re-scheduled. Therefore, Jim recommends people to boycott the subsequent sales meeting. This is a conflict of interest, and Jim is doing this for his ill motives towards the company. It is a core reason to fire Jim legally as he has no right to act maliciously towards the company.
Ellen establishes a blog to air her complaints about the allowances that the company CEO earns. She even notes that the employees’ pay had remained at the same level under the ruling of their autocrat CEO. This could be a genuine case; however, Ellen broadcasted the message to the wrong people. At least, she should raise the matter at a meeting, and if the rightful actions are not taken, Ellen can address the matter legally as long as she has enough evidence. Although Ellen cannot be fired legally, she deserves a warning as the matter is investigated to determine the truth behind it.
Bill uses the company’s resources for his side business. Indeed, Bill has violated the company rules by misusing its resources. Just like Ellen, Bill needs a warning, and if possible, he should repay the company for the damages that he might have caused for misusing its resources, otherwise he can be fired on a legal basis.
Secretaries protest the issue of installing a key logger in almost all computers because the announcement is aired through a memo instead of being aired at a meeting. The secretaries need to be warned that their actions may not help them; otherwise, they can be legally fired under the employment at-will doctrine. All they need to do is to raise their concern in a staff meeting. Probably, the key loggers were installed without their consultation, but it could be to the advantage of the company.
Joe uses his personal email to criticize a customer, and thus receives a punishment. Thereafter, Joe thinks that suing the company would earn him some favor. Joe should be warned that taking legal actions would do him no good as he anticipates. In any case, Joe acted wrongly for having taken the company’s affairs into his private life and he can be fired legally. Indeed, Joe should apologize to the customer and to the company for his wrongful deeds.
A secretary refuses to prepare some report depicting false expenses for her boss; therefore, the boss is seeking for some approval to fire the secretary for disobedience. Indeed, the secretary has all the right to defend herself and she cannot be fired under such allegations. In fact, the issue crucifies the supervisor and subjects him into further investigation.
Anna has a jury duty to attend to, but her boss refuses to sign her leave documents. She decides to go ahead and attend to the jury duties despite the fact that she was denied the permission. Therefore, her boss wants to fire her for absconding duties. Sincerely, all employees have a right to obtain permission to attend to jury duties; therefore, Anna cannot be fired under the named allegations (Haymes & Kleiner, 2001). The boss needs to be investigated, as his intention to fire Anna could have some ill motives.

Action to limit liability

The foremost action to limit liability is to ensure that new recruits sign the employment at will statements before they are hired. The duly signed doctrines will protect the company by limiting its liabilities whenever an employee is fired. The duly signed doctrine should be produced whenever the fired employee decides to sue the company. In this case, the company has legal rights to fire John, Jim, and Bill among other employees for some tangible reasons. Moreover, the ethical theory of utilitarianism supports the termination of employment if employees are involved in unfavorable behaviors that harm the organization.

The whistleblower policy

Indeed, the above named scenarios clearly portray that the company lacks a whistleblower policy that should be adopted. The policy encourages transparency in the workplace as it motivates employees to report fraud cases, corruption cases, or any other cases of injustice within the work environment without the fear of intimidation (Miceli & Near, 2002). The policy enables the employees to voice their concerns with confidence. A strong organizational culture facilitates the whistleblower policy, which in turn enhances professional integrity within the work environment. The three fundamental items in the whistle blow policy should include:

Anonymity: The whistleblower is assured of anonymity when the issues are handled internally. Essentially, the whistle blower’s identity is hidden unless external legal actions are involved.
Rigorous investigations: All disclosures must be taken seriously such that the witnesses and all involved parties are interrogated to obtain the true information.
Unanimous protection: All employees are assured of protection from persecution or harassment because of disclosing vicarious information.

Conclusion

Indeed, the described scenarios relay that the employees in the mid size company are overwhelmed with the way things are handled in the organization. Clearly, the company does not have a clear procedure of addressing their issues; therefore, it needs a whistleblower policy that contains influential elements. The rationale for the selection of the three fundamental items in the whistleblower policy is that employees will be assured of protection whenever they reveal very sensitive information. Secondly, the employees will be assured that their concerns will be considered, and they will be addressed in a professional and confidential manner. Indeed, a whistleblower policy is very vital in any organization as it combats fraud, conflicts, and all malpractices within the organization.

References

Haymes, J., & Kleiner, B.H. (2001). Federal and state statutory exemptions to at-will employment. Managerial Law, 43(12), 92-108.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies. Human Relations, 55(4), 455-479.

Park, S. (2003). Working towards freedom from abuse: Recognizing a public policy exception to employment-at-will law. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 59(12), 121-162.

Click Here To Order Now!