Employers can be bound by anything stated in the employee handbook at the time of disciplining or discharging the employee. The employee handbook states the rights and responsibilities of both the employer and employee. It binds both parties to follow the terms of employment until it ends or is changed. When an employee is discharged, employee handbook can protect the employer against lawsuits, which are based on the employee’s actions (Harvey, 2013). The employee handbook can also be a source of reasoning for discharging an employee of the company.
An employee handbook can bound employers to follow all policies and procedures stated in the employee handbook for employees to follow to provide a better employment environment. An employee handbook defines the
…show more content…
But, employees are not obligated to abide by the changes made by the employer of his/her own discretion (Corthesy & Roper, 2014). It also presents the benefit to the employer of not following specific termination procedures when disciplining or discharging the employee. But in the case of a union employee, employee handbook can bind the employer because the employee handbook is considered a collective bargaining agreement in court. In this case the employee and employer are expected to abide by the procedures and policies stated in the handbook (Barancova & Olsovska, 2011). “Currently, enforceable just cause protections exist in collective bargaining agreements and in employment contracts with individuals with sufficient leverage to successfully bargain for enforceable job security protections” (Herbert, McNally, p.386, 2016). The “at will” legal concept is utilized more in the courtroom than in the workplace. “Under at-will employment, an employer
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
DCAMM employee Carl Duemling’s attitude and the way he conducts buisness reflects poorly as a state employee and an employee of DCAMM. Duemling attempts to verbally disapline ISA officers. This is not the first time he has displayed such behavior and I am sure it will not be the last. Duemling reapetedly threatens ISA officers jobs. As Supervisor of the Charles F. Hurley building I will not tolorate such bevaior toward my officers. Myself and the officers assigned to the Hurley are well aware of what needs to be done to secure the building properly. Duemling forgets it was my staff and I who trained him on policies and procedures associated with the sucurity of the building.
From the UAW website, being in a union allows for all disciplinary infractions are subject to grievance procedures and arbitration, depending on the contract (United Auto Workers, 2015). GMFC should create a discipline and termination policy where if employees feel the anything is unjust they can voice their concerns and go through a process where both sides are heard and considered (Colvin, 2013). If times do become tough and there needs to be an employment reduction, GMFC needs to have a policy in place to try and redistribute employees to other facilities or cross train employees so that they can share jobs and split
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
Mortimer, M., 2006. Employment Law and Labor Law. Employlaw.com retrieved December 11, 2008 from: http://www.employlaw.com/hoffa.htm
Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also change the terms of employment without notice and no penalties. Throughout this paper, the two sides to employment at will will be discussed, and different examples of employment at will cases will be given. At its most basic, employment at will is not the best path because it can create feelings of violation and betrayal in the employee and can create a negative public opinion or loss of profit for the business.
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
Remington, J., Heiser, R., Smythe, C., & Sovereign, K. (2012). Human resources law (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
Labour and Employment Law. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.
Part 2 of Employer Duties and Rights- management rights, subcontracting, just-cause discipline and discharge, and safety standards.
Legal considerations play an important role in how employers and employees interact in the workplace. Common-law doctrines regarding this relationship have been established from many legal decisions made over the course of centuries (Reed & Bogardus, 2012). Common-law doctrines lay the foundation for best practices in employment which provide for both employer and employee safeguards.