Employment At Will Doctrine Essay

Summarize the employment-at- for hasten doctrine and evaluate from each one of the eight (8) scenarios described by determining The employment-at-will doctrine states that an employee canful be fired or released from a comp either for ca pulmonary tuberculosis or no cause at every(prenominal). The employee to a fault has the slump to quit a profligate of descent for any(prenominal) reason. Under this legislation, neither the employer or employee incurs adverse legal consequences (NCSL, 2014). in that location be three exceptions that be observed by the law to embarrass a dismissal that violates a states public form _or_ system of government, where in that location is an implied contract for employment, or where there is an implied covenant of good faith and plum dealing (Muhl, 2001, p4). People can non be fired base on the individual(a)s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p134). An individual can overly non be fired found on a disability or due to filing a workmans comp claim.Imagine you are a recently-hired Chief Operating Officer (COO) in a midsize caller-up preparing for an Initial Public Offering (IPO). You quickly wear out multiple personnel problems that require your immediate attention. As an astute manager, you will need to analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and stipulate what, if any, exceptions and liabilities exist before pickings any deed. oWhether you can legally fire the employee include an assessment of any pertinent exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. oWhat action you should take to limit liability and impact on operations specify which ethical theory best supports your decision.John post a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the connections most important customer. Johns actions took place on his own time, and the information was posted on his individualised site. The action from the confederacy would depend on whether John made the post and none of his coworkers chimed in or go overd with him, or if nighone did agree with him. Concerted use is saved under the law but non g dallyts and groaning from one employee. accord to Eidelson (2012), concerted activity will take different forms for different workers. kind of simply put, Johns post could cause a dismissal of cable for the company or even a disgruntled customer, not to mention the companys most important customer. The company would be protected in liberation him. I made this decision based on the Ethics of Care. John made a comment somewhat our most important customer, and it is the companys business to make real the customer continues to be our most important customer.Jim direct an e broadcast to separate gross revenue populate protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting. Jims case is interesting. The answer to run him is it depends. If Jim is disgruntled and just unyielding to send out a n electronic mail to all of his coworkers to get them roweled up, then he could be fired legally. However, if he had been talking to other(a) employees and then sent them an email to further talk or so actions to take, he would be protected under the law as protected concerted activity (Eidelson, 2012). Also, the adjudicate may look at Jims case to see if he talked with any of the upper management about concerns before trying to get others to boycott. The judge would check to see if Jim was part of a union as come up. In one case where an employee sent an email, the judge ruled that her firing was legal, because her email merely expressed an individual gripe rather than any shared concerns about working conditions (Newby, 2013).Since this description did not say that other employees joined in with Jim, the judge would rule that his firing was legal. After firing Jim, I would call a meeting with the rest of the employees to make confident(predicate) that Jims attitude towards the company had not spread to others and to try to bump some solutions if it had. I made this decision based on the equity Ethics model. Ellen started a blog to protest the chief operating officers bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in 2 (2) years and portraying her stampes as know-nothings and out-of-touch. Ellen started a blog to protest the CEOs bonus. The employer would need to make sure that Ellens post had not been commented on by other employees who were in agreement with her. The company should also look to its social media polity if it has one. The employer could be cover if the form _or_ system of government states that employees cannot enunciate derogatorily about their boss or coworkers online.The National Labor Relations conduct states that workers make believe the adjust to discuss their wages and conditions of employment however, griping or verbalize by a single employee is not protected (Rogers, 2013). Ellen stepped across the line by criticizing the CEO of the company and calling him names. This could cause a interruption in the company and lower morale. The company would be justified in firing Ellen. I would do this based on Deontology which focuses on rights and duties,  carnal knowledge the truth and fairness (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p17). Bill has been using his company-is executed BlackBerry to run his own business on the side. Bill was given the company-issued BlackBerry to use for work. As I read in most articles, it is expected that in this digital age employees will use their employers equipment for some type of in-person use. nigh companies have policies on the use of company equipment. If Bill is a good employee, there is no loss of productivity, and the majority of his personal business is taking place during off-time, Bill should not be fired, and it would not be deemed legal, unless the companys insurance policy says something different.The companys policy should be clearly communic ated to all employees and and be consistently enforced as well (BizFilings, 2012). Bill should be aware that the employer generally can monitor, listen in and record employee phone calls on employer owned phones to include voice mail and text messages (Bussing, 2011). So if his employer found that he was exchanging insider information about the company through the company BlackBerry, they would be justified in firing him. I chose this course of action based on Virtue Ethics. If Bill feels his employer trusts him, he will most likely remain trustworthy and honest to the company.The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white banding to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed keylogger software on all company computers. The secretaries could not be legally fired in this instance. The secretaries would also be covered under the National Labor Relations Act. They are silently protesting the keylogger software. There is much than one pe rson involved in this silent protest and they have the right to discuss conditions of employment (Rogers, 2013). I chose this based on the Ethics of Care. The secretaries obviously do not agree with a new procedure in the workplace. The upper management should not come down on them for that. The secretaries are quietly organizing themselves, and they should have the right to disagree.After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Company computers are company computers. The company has the right to information that is sent on its computers, especially during work hours. Joe should not be discussing work business through his personal emails. Joe would not be covered under the First Amendment, because it protects all of us from the government, not from private companies (NOLO, 2014). I chose this action based on Free Market Ethics. This model focu ses on what is good for the company. Joe cannot stay with the company while criticizing the customers, especially through his personal email at work. If the company keeps Joe around and the information gets out, it could lose more than it would by letting him go.One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his writing table for insubordination. Since the secretaire has constantly received glowing reviews, you call her into your office and determine that she has refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss. The secretarys firing would not be justified in this situation. Although the secretary is an employee at will who could be fired for cause or no reason at all, it appears that the secretary is being retaliated against for refusing to prepare corrupt documents. The secretarys reviews have always been great, so there is no presence of a developmental throw or previous violations of company policy. The company most likely has some type of policy for pr ogressive discipline, so if the supervisor did not pass the plan to the letter, the firing would not be justified. I chose this action based on Deontology. The employer has the obligation to be honest and to remain steadfast to normal principles (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p17).Annas boss refused to sign her leave request for control board duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission. Annas boss could not legally fire her due to fortune gore duty. Most states prohibit employers from firing or disciplining employees called to serve on a control panel and some states prohibit employers from trying to discourage or intimidate employees from serving (NOLO, 2014). Annas boss could be held in contempt of court if Anna did not show up to court because of her employers decision (Gordon, 2012). I chose this action based on Utilitarianism, because the choice of firing Anna due to attending jury duty may have a detrimental effect on the entire workplace. As you proc eed with your investigation, you discover the company has no whistle blower policy.Take a position on whether or not you would urge on to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) that the company adopt a whistleblower policy. Support the position. I would recommend to the CEO that the company adopt a whistleblower policy. It is important to have such a policy so that tribe know the proper steps to take when disclosing information of actus reus in the workplace and know that they will be protected for overlap such information. In the situation between the supervisor and his secretary, a whistleblowing policy could have exposed the issue earlier. It seemed that the secretary did not tell anyone about the supervisor pressuring her to create false documents, until she was faced with losing her job.Justify at to the lowest degree three (3) fundamental items that should be include in a whistleblower policy. Provide a rationale for your selection of each of the three (3) recommended i tems. The first of all item that should be include in a whistleblower policy is the tariff to queer that information to appropriate parties inside the organization (Barnett, 1992). The employees are the ones who are going to see the wrongdoing most likely. Without laying the responsibility on the employees, they may not know how important it is to the company and may not feel supported in their efforts to share information. This part of the policy should also include that the process will take place in spite of appearance the organization and that all information given should be done so in good faith (Barnett, 1992). The second item that should be included in a whistleblowing policy is a group of neutral people outside the chain of command as complaint recipients (Barnett, 1992).This should make people feel more comfortable sharing violations, because they dont have to worry about backlash from sharing information. It would make it much harder for an employee to disclose informa tion to the group if he knew the person he was telling on was best friends with someone on the committee. Finally, the policy should outline the steps of the investigation process and give assurance to the whistleblower that there will be no adverse employment consequences (Barnett, 1992). The Whistleblower Acts should also be included in the employee handbook so that employees not only understand the policy within their current workplace, but as it is stated by the government. The employee will know what is covered and what is not.ReferencesBarnett, T. (1992). Why Your Company Should Have a Whistleblowing Policy.Retrieved may 4th, 2014, from http//ethics.csc.ncsu.edu /old/12_00/basics/whistle/rst/wstlblo_policy.html BizFilings. (2012). Using Policies to Address Employees Personal ingestion of BusinessEquipment. Retrieved May 4th, 2014, from