Employment-at-Will, Research Paper Example

The employment-at-will doctrine is a legally binding contract between employees and employer that helps define acceptable restrictions in the workplace. Ultimately, it states that the employer is able to let an employee go without having to prove just cause or provide them without warning. When employees sign a contract with their employer, they are made aware of their terms of employment. At the time this contract is signed, the employee is stating that he or she is aware of regulations that will be enforced in the workplace, and will usually be informed of conduct that is grounds for dismissal. If at any time the employee is in violations of these grounds, the employer is able to dismiss the employee if seen fit (Shepherd, 2011).

Although many people believe that employment-at-will is unfair, it is important to understand the relationship between the employer and employee to demonstrate that the two are equal under this doctrine. Employees are hired at will, just as employees have the right to leave their jobs at any point in time. This way, if either party believes that the relationship is not beneficial, it may be put to an end. Specifically, the doctrine from case law reads, “An employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason… The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 2000). As a consequence, it is possible for employers and employees to establish contrasts outside the employment-at-will doctrine, and hiring and firing will adhere to these standards when these acts come into question. However, if no additional terms are adopted, employment-at-will is the primary regulatory factor of hiring and firing in the workplace.

The three major exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine include firing an employee for reasons that violate a State’s public policy, for reasons that violate a contract that was signed at the time of hiring, and a covenant of good faith should not be violated, meaning that firings should not be done with malice intended, although this specific exemption depends on the opinions of the states (Muhl, 2001).

In the first situation in which John criticizes an important customer, it is necessary to further consider the situation. While John should not be allowed to discuss company business on Facebook, we should consider whether the customer found out about this criticism and whether it will have an impact of business. If John’s action had no real impact on business, he should be given a warning, and allowed to continue to work, thus ensuring the covenant of good faith. While he could be legally fired according to employment-at-will, this is likely not a worthwhile action for the company. Furthermore, it is likely that John was just frustrated when he posted on Facebook, and didn’t mean to hurt the company. Based on Kantian ethics, since he didn’t do any harm, he should remain employed.

When Jim sent an email to the other employees protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses in addition to suggesting that everyone boycott the next sales meeting, he did so to deliberately hurt the company in an attempt to benefit. Although this would benefit the salespeople, it would harm the other members of the company. Since Jim defies the ethical concept of utilitarianism, it may be useful to fire him because he deserve it and because it will show the other employees that this type of behavior is not okay. According to the employment-at-will doctrine, it is legal to fire Jim.

To determine whether Ellen’s blog will be detrimental to the company, it is important to determine if employees actually read her blog and if her facts are correct. If an e-mail could be sent to employees with the true facts to resolve the problem, this would be beneficial over firing Ellen. She should however, be given a warning that her job could be at risk if she does anything to hurt the company in the future. While the company could fire her according to employment-at-will, Kantian ethics states that it would be more beneficial for the company to avoid this.

Because Bill has been using his Blackberry to run his own business on the side, he is clearly wasting company time and resources. Furthermore, this violates any contract he could have signed at employment. This contradicts utilitarianism principles and hurts more people at the company than it does benefit, so according to employment-at-will, Bill should be fired.

The secretaries in the accounting department should not be fired for their actions, although they could according to employment-at-will. They aren’t doing this to hurt the company, but to demonstrate their discontent for the new software. It is essential to educate them on the purposes of the software, and how it will benefit both them and the company. They will also be asked to change their behavior and dress appropriately for work. If they are unable to comply however, they will be informed that their jobs could be at risk. This is justifiable because the company should ensure the most people benefit (utilitarianism) and the actions of the secretaries do pose a potential threat.

Joe will be informed that by working for the company, he gives them permission to look at anything done on his work computer. It is clear that this action was detrimental to the company, and Joe intends to hurt the company even more by suing them. It would therefore not be beneficial for the company to keep him on staff, and employment-at-will states that he could be fired. Utilitarianism is the ethical principle that supports this claim.

While the department supervisor requested that his secretary be fired, it is he himself who should be fired. According to employment-at-will, the secretary could technically be fired for not following the orders of her superior, although if she had done so, it would have hurt the company. Therefore, she did the right thing by refusing to follow his orders. Firing her would violate the covenant of good faith; since this would be questionable, she should not be fired.

Because Anna asked her boss to sign her leave request for jury duty, and Anna’s boss refused to, it would not be ethical to fire Anna on the basis of absence without permission. While employment-at-will permits an employee to be fired at any time, with or without reason, this would be firing an employee for a reason that is not valid, which violates the covenant of good faith. As a consequence, Anna’s boss should not be allowed to fire her.

It is essential for the CEO of the company to put a whistleblower policy in place because it will encourage employees to come forward and report unethical behavior that they have seen in the workplace. With this type of policy in place, the employees know that they will remain protected, and therefore be more likely to come forward. Ensuring ethical behavior occurs in a company is necessary because it allows for a positive and productive work environment, which will in turn result in more profit for the company.

Three fundamental items that should be included in the whistleblower policy are which personnel of the human resources department to contact if they have a report, how the situation could be reported anonymously, and how to tell whether an observed event is a breach of ethics. The first item is necessary because it will ensure that the whistleblower doesn’t have to go through any third parties in order to make his or her report. It is essential that the identity of the whistleblower be kept secret so that employees won’t feel that they will be harmed if they come forward. Next, it is important to develop ways for the whistleblowers to report the event anonymously, so that even the human resources representative won’t be able to form a biased opinion of the situation, or risk revealing the individual’s identity. An easy way to do this would be providing an online form that will be sent to the human resources representative’s inbox without tracking the IP address of the computer that sent it.

References

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000).24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352.

Muhl, C. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Shepherd, J. (2011). Firing At Will: A Manager’s Guide. Apress Media.