According to Kruger, Employment-at-will is a document that specifies that an employee can be terminated for no reason. This document goes ahead to clarify that an employee can leave work without notice. Also, this document has given employees the mandate to behave in any way without the knowledge of their employer. In addition, this document clarifies that an employer can only terminate an employee under a good course. “This document states that this termination must not be discriminating or go against the laws of the state. This doctrine has led to unlawful acts done to the employees thus an exception to this act is put aside to curb all these unlawful vices” (Kruger, 1996).
Describe what steps you would take to address the following scenario involving skills, competence, and abilities:
The employment doctrine protects the rights of employees. However, with regard to the case study, the employee is breaching the contract. The contract states that employees should provide and yield results at the specified area of experience. This employee refuses to admit that her skills are not as she claims to be. This imposes risks to the company, as she cannot produce the required results. The employee should try to maintain the required performance. This document protects the employer from terminating their employee, as this situation can lead to adverse effects. In the contract, it is stated that the employee should help the company yield results. This employee is misusing this document as she utters claims meant to cover her incompetence. The employee should be frank about her condition, and this will ease her tension.
According to Shepard, Olsen, and Duston in the book “Employment at will: A guide to an eroding doctrine”, the employment-at-will doctrine does not support poor performance; thus, any termination is from the breach of contract. The legal steps that would follow are to give the employee a chance to streamline her skills or risk termination. “Termination is guaranteed if the employer does not stick to her contract as this poses risks to the company. This act stipulates that an employer can terminate an employee on the basis of not performing. This law states that an employer should document an employee’s record about their discipline, as this has a significant effect on termination” (Shepard, Olsen, & Duston, 1987). This law stipulates that an employer may opt to dismiss an employee on the basis of the warning issued. This law also does not support any termination arising from any warning issued. Termination arising from this warning would be appropriate and unquestionable.
Describe what steps you would take to address the following scenario involving management, behavior, and performance:
The employment-at-will document states that an employee follows the rules stipulated in the employee book. The rules stipulate that the employee must follow all the rules and abide by them. The doctrine specifies that the employee must abide to these rules and follow them. This employee has breached the rules in the contract, as she risks deteriorating the company’s performance. This implies that the employee is not mindful of the rules and, therefore, does not put them in mind, since the employment act protects them from termination. This employee is assuming the fact that her behaviors can lead to termination, as she is risking the performance of the company.
In addition, Shilepsky claims that every employee must follow the rules and regulation of the firm as stipulated and abide by them. These habits are intimidating, and the employee should understand that they have gone against the rights of the company; thus, she needs to mend her ways. “This act would lead to termination, as the Employment Act does not protect against underperformance. Termination should be done only after there have been legal consultations” (Shilepsky, 2005).
Describe what steps you would take to address the following scenario involving labor and laws:
The Employment Act stipulates that an employee should not be discriminated from taking her day off. This means that the employee is limited to work during her day off. The employee at hand has misunderstood this rule, as it does not stipulate that one takes a day off even when work is ongoing. This shows that the employee has utterly disregarded her work and the rules set aside by the company. Any day off could have been authorized by the employer.
This incident could have slowed down the rate of work and performance. This act could have led the company to spend a lot to cover for the absent employee. The employee handbook stipulates that any day off should be granted when necessary and to all employees. The employee has also gone against the employment doctrine by enticing others to form a union against the company. The employee has gone ahead to mislead the others; thus, termination to this employee would be justified.
According to the Employees Protective Association, the employer should have a written document that stipulates the behavior of the employee. This guarantees the employer that the termination of this employee is with cause. The rule also stipulates that an employee cannot assume work to attend other activities that are not stipulated in the handbook. This act specifies that an employer can only terminate an employee with a reasonable cause. “It is against the codes that guide the acceptable conducts in a company to deal in illegal activities, which will result in termination or destructive relationship with the employer” (Employees Protective Association, 1984).
Describe what steps you would take to address the following scenario involving policies and procedures:
Moreover, according to Kruger, the conducts that should be followed by every employee are stipulated in the hand book. “It is against the rules of the state not to fulfill the contract signed when applying for a job. Employees are to abide to these rules if they are discriminatory. Every employee should follow the rules and has the right to challenge that rule” (Kruger, 1996). This employee could have challenged this rule if it discriminated her. However, this was not morally right to the company to form a consensual relationship with other employees. The supervisor being an old member of the company could have rejected the relationship but ultimately went against the rules.
According to Hill, “the Employment Act stipulates that termination is liable if there is improper behavior found in an employee” (Hill & Wharton School, 1997). This could only be done after the employer has clearly documented the employee’s behaviors and used it as a witness for termination. This employee is not cautious of the rules set aside by the company; thus she seems to be the one who does not care about the situation. This action could have led to the documentation of her habits and then a stern warning issued to both the supervisor and employee. The employer can terminate the employee, but this can be illegal if the employer had no knowledge about that rule.
It should be noted that an employer can terminate an employee without any cause noted or with cause noted. This law was enacted to protect employees from discrimination by employers. Anyone found to go against this contract is said to have breached the contract and legal action should be taken against them. This law stipulates that termination on the basis of discrimination leads to serious effects. Employment stipulations state that every employee should perform and be productive to the company. Every employee who does not attain this is liable to termination. The employment doctrine states that an employee should abide by the rules stipulated during employment. This act does not support any termination that is an outcome of underperformance. This act states that employees should follow the rules and have the right to claim against these rules if they are discriminating. Mistakes may arise and may be made without consent, which needs forgiveness, but those that arise as a result of not abiding by them could and are punishable. All employees should abide by the rules stipulated and avoid any conflicts arising between them and employers.