Introduction
In a majority of business organizations, bargaining in good faith contains exceptions aimed at barring employers from terminating employees where there are clearly stated policies of the state. For instance terminating an employee for refusing to violate the law at the request of their employer is not allowed in state laws. At-will presumption is based on the need for employers and employees to practice in good faith such that there is respect for freedom of contract and the belief that both parties favor at will relationships over job security. At will employment also implies that the employer is in a position to changes the terms of employment without notice and no consequences.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Employment-At-Will-Doctrine".
Reflection of At-Will-Instances in the Case
Some of the changes that can be done by the employer include altering wages, terminating incentives and reducing paid time off. However, it is evident that at will doctrine makes employees susceptible to sudden dismissal, unannounced cuts in wages and benefits and altering of work schedules without an involvement of workers (Dannin, 2007). The at-will doctrines are well stipulated in the case where the company limits protection of an employee’s off-duty activities. Employees are not protected from adverse employment conditions resulting from legal off-duty engagements (Dannin, 2007). Denying employees an opportunity to engage in off-duty roles legally is a form of discrimination. Anna’s boss failure to sign her leave request and expressing the managers’ intentions to fire her for being absent without permission is an element of the at-will doctrine. The exception of at will employment needs to be applied since Ann involved herself in bona fide off-duty roles.
Exceptions of at will doctrine limit employers from firing employees in retaliation for engaging in legally proper, necessary and desirable activities. Protected activities include claiming minimum wages, engaging in union activities and claiming overtime payment. Ellen in her blog protests the CEO’s bonus since no one below the director had received a pay rise for two years. However, in the blog, Ellen also claims that her bosses are ‘know nothings’ and are ‘out of touch’ which in this case may influence her employers to consider terminating her contract.
The company lacks whistle-blower policy which implies that employees are not protected from reactions by their employers when the former decides to expose wrongful actions of employers. Lack of a whistle-blower policy exposes workers to work health and safety violations, poor working environments, discrimination and high-level fraud (Mark, 1996). One of the secretaries refuses to prepare false expenses reports for her boss and not faces the risk of termination. With a lack of whistle-blower policy, it is evident that the secretary will have nowhere to run to hence may be affected by illegal actions of her employers.
Exceptions to at-will doctrine have to be used to prevent harsh consequences taken by employers. Three exceptions include public policy, implied contract and implied convenient of good faith (Dannin, 2007). Employees have to be allowed to prove that their circumstances fall within one of the exceptions. Employers’ actions must not violate public interests including their refusal to perform an act that the state law prohibits, reporting a violation of the law by their employer including engaging in fraudulent practices like the case of the secretary and her boss (Summers, 2000). Exceptions also include employers allowing their workers to engage in acts like performing jury duties that are in line with the interest of the public.
Employers’ handbooks, policy guides, and written rules need to create an implied contract that creates and sustain desirable working practices. However, for relationships to be at will, verbal contracts are not to be used on long term basis since it implies that employees are protected by ambiguous disclaimers (Summers, 2000). Termination of employees should also not be based on malice or bad faith. Bad faith termination includes instances where an older employee is fired to avoid paying retirement benefits or terminating a sale person to avoid paying a higher commission.
Conclusion
Companies need to have clear guidelines that employees will not be dismissed for expressing their view in a legal manner and addressing hard facts that if unaddressed may limit firm’s progress in future. However, employers do not wish to experience instances where employees turn to social media platforms like blogs to taint the image of the company hence the need to use tighter controls to influence actions of workers. The tone for reliance on at will employment has to be right in the sense that managers portray high levels of maturity that protect the interests of well-meaning employees. To keep brilliant and proactive employees whose good ideas fuel high productivity across different organizational functions. It is necessary for employers to hear what employees have to them and how good ideas can be retrieved from workers. Managing in modern workplaces need to be determined by trustful environments where employers are willing to incorporate exceptions of at-will employment doctrine to allow their workers to engage in activities that are of the best interest of the public.
- Dannin, E. (2007). Why at will employment is bad for employers and just cause is good for them. Labor and Employment Relations Conference, (pp. 5-9). Chicago.
- Mark, W. (1996). The Public Policy Exception to the Employment at Will Doctrine in Ohio: A Need for a Legislative Approach. Ohio State Law Journa, 57(5), 1799-1837.
- Summers, C. (2000). Employment at will in the United States: The divine right of employers. Journal of Labour and Employment Law, 3(1), 65-73.
- Urhuogo, I. (2010). Impact of Employment-at-will Clause on Employees and Employers. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 2(1), 29-35.
