Employment at will doctrine enables an employee to ensure that a different employee is executed for any provided reason aside from an illegal motive or no reason without any legal capabilities. The same legal decision or no provided support by organizations allow employees to drop positions in jobs at any given time without any provided reason annulled of penalties that are considered legal (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). Employees, with employment at good doctrine, have the capability to transform its terms as well as the policies of an organization without giving notice.
Benefits, as well as wages, can be integrated at any time. Alteration of the doctrine can take place by contracts that are perceived by organization managers. The task may have particular employment regulations or can mention that any state of termination will particularly be reasons for example poor undertaking of job or misconduct on the employee part. Courts have however provided exceptions to the rule of employment at will doctrine since its inception.
The basic consideration of the employment at will involve the intended contract as well as public policy. Public policy exceptions prevent executions of employees for participation denial inactivates that a particular state of law forbids, providing a report of an act that violates the regulations, acts that are for the public interest, or for exercising rights of citizens, for instance, filling compensation claims of an employee. Contracts that are implied are constructed particular moments in a verbal manner or with the assistance of presented language of the handbook of an organizational manager.
A manager may provide verbal assurance that an employee’s service will not be terminated or some or provided protocols in the handbook that enables the implication that managers have not the ability to terminate an individual’s employment. Being a new employee as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) with organizations, various personal problems have been presented. The employment-at-will doctrine has to be analyzed with various situations to enable the course of action that should be recommended. Evaluation of various liabilities as well as exceptions will be addressed to ensure all instances are put into practice. Moreover, whistleblowers policies do not exist in place for the organization.
John has decided to provide his suggestions relating to one of the most profitable clients in a public manner through showing the feelings he as on a social platform. First, Human representatives have to be consulted with an aim of appraising incase the organization has various policies in place that addresses an employee’s conduct on social media platform. Second a statement copy that John posted should reach us. Considering the employment at will doctrine, particular protected activities are presented that should be here in considering determinations in case John should or should not be executed (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). For this situation, John decided to criticize the number one client in a public manner. Employees represent an organization.
Similar actions can suggest that the negative feelings that are posted form the organization and not particular individuals. The statement should be evaluated, and decisions should be made whether John had been venting or the intentions he had were for improvement on something. The actions that John showed, considering National Labor Relations Act, he is supposed to take full responsibility for them and not the organization (Rubin & Stait, 2011). For this reason, since this company is a private organization, we recommend that the employee needs to be terminated. For future references, employees need to be aware of codes of ethics as well as organizations standards.
Ellen was not pleased by their CEO who could receive bonuses of the company instead of the workers making her protest against it using a blog page. According to utilitarianism theory which stated that an organization’s benefit is to maintain and not execute an employer demanding his or her right she was forced to account for the same in the business. The National Labor Relations Board that protects employees in the country made her to motivated ass this corporation is formed to protect employees from negative exploitation and mistreatment by their employers (Rubin& Stait 2011).
On her blog, she stated that for the last two decades, all workers under their director’s position have been given a salary increase. In her statement, she also indicated that managers need to be responsible and fair in treating both junior and senior staffs in the organization such as equal salary increments. In as much as Ellen works for the company which happens to a public one, it is the manager to decide either to retain or recruit her from the business premise if he considers her action as being unethical but by following the legal procedures for termination of an employee.
Another worker named Bill was found operating his personal duties using a Blackberry phone given to him by the company for business purposes only. Despite him using the phone, the company manager had a right to monitor if the assets given to staffs are being utilized appropriately and matches its usage. In his case, the company administration had all the capabilities to execute him from the business as this is considered a breach of contract and misuse of the business properties. Possession rules need to be adhered to by the administrators despite the deontology theory that applies, in this case, allowing them to make a decision for Bill, who exercised his rights and duties improperly.
A firm’s rate of privacy should be limited to the owners only. The management has a right to monitor and update the company’s email at all cost allowing them to make changes and reduce compensations for employees when its production process reduces. Jim being one of the employees in the firm was given a duty to control the company’s email account, but he used in the wrong way for other purposes rather than that of the business. Therefore in his situation, an execution applies for misuse of the system under the utilitarianism theory allowing decisions to be made for Jim’s tactics and a greater good solution would be reprimanded orally upon consultations with the senior management.
Conversely, a supervisor in a department requires the confirmation of firing a secretary, citing insubordination. Since the secretary have been having standard performance and giving good outcomes for the company, a meeting will first be held to discuss the matter at the board. In the end, she declined the accusations made at her from the supervisor. Under an employment-at-will doctrine of the public policy, a confirmation for such accusations of an employee must not be given by the accused as it protects the worker from false documentation done to her. Under the utilitarianism policy, it shows that there are alternative ways to resulting consequences in executing a secretary but after doing a formal investigation in supervising the action of abuse of power by the secretary. Sixth Issue
Anna reported late to work due to her jury duty without any approval from her employer to do so making one of the supervisors in the organization to provide a recommendation that she should be terminated from work. Before removing anyone from duty, supervisors need to know that every citizen has a right to serve a jury responsibility in the society. It is also a public policy exception to execute an employee because of exercising their duties and rights outside the business premise. To decrease all liabilities incurred in the line of duty, the organization manager must ensure that the human resource department conducts a complete training in managing the board to review efficiently and effectively the policies and protocols the organization follows in their daily operations. For reduction of every other liability and impact to conducts, the association should guarantee human asset directs a complete preparing for overseeing board for audit of the arrangement and the conventions the association takes after. (Muhl, 2001). In Anna’s case, the top management and human resource board leaders have a duty to hold a meeting discussion with Ann’s manager to ensure his argument on reporting past time to work and offer her with possible regulations and rules to be followed when one needs to do other duties before reporting to place of work. Such a document was to be given after getting a solution to her lateness.
In conclusion, as a COO in an organization, the above presented issues, the whole organization needs to consider applying a whistleblower policy to solve the problems. Whistleblower is used when a person brings attention to crimes being committed in the company and immediate action needs to be taken. If internal issues affecting the company are solved on time, the administration will be in position to prevent other negative impact problems that might occur in the future creating a public concern. Documentation of the firm’s matters affecting the company should be filled as it serves as a warning to the employer who had a misconduct behavior at work.
Barnett, T. (1992). Why your company should have a whistle-blowing policy.SAM Advanced Management Journal, 57(4), 37-42.
Muhl, C. J. (2001). Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions, The. Monthly Lab. Rev., 124, 3.
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2011). Law and ethics in the business environment. Cengage Learning.