Case #2: Just one little slip
1. Does Charlene have a good argument that she is a contractual employee and that the company has a relationship with her that is controlled by either express or implied terms? Explain your answer. A contractual employee is a person who signed a contract before starting to work. Charlene Fisher has a very strong argument that she is a contractual employee. A contract is defined as “an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do so particular thing” (Willis 185). A contract consists of five components. There has to be 1) an agreement 2) consideration 3) legal capacity to contract 4) lawful subject matter and 5) genuine consent to the contract. In this scenario, after Charlene gave an interview …show more content…
According to the textbook, an employment at-will “allows the company or the worker to break the work relationship at any point in time, with or without any particular reason, as long as in doing so, no law is violated (325).” The company is going to claim that Charlene was fired because her one mistake cost them thousands and thousands of dollars and if this occurred once then it could occur again in the future. They will also state that her contract extended the first three years because her work performance those years were satisfactory. However, this year her performance was not good and did not meet their expectations and therefore had to let go of her because she was costing them money instead of bringing in money. If the organization keeps an employee who cannot do their job then not only is the organization harmed but also the employee. If a person cannot do a task then that leads to frustration which then leads to lower employee engagement and job …show more content…
Basically, what this asks is was the employee given any knowledge that doing this action was forbidden? This could be mentioned in the employee handbook or in some form of writing. In this case, Charlene was not given a forewarning of her action. After the incident occurred, she was just told that the company was not happy with her. The second question that should be considered is was the company’s rule reasonably related to the 1)efficient and safe operation of the organization’s business and 2) the performance that the company expects of the employee? At this stage, it is determined whether the rule was reasonable. The next question that should be asked is did the organization actually look into the issue and determine if the employee did violate a rule? If reasonable evidence is found then this test is passed. It is really important that the supervisor investigates what happened and what caused the action. In the scenario, when Charlene made the forecasting error, there was no investigation. The company just decided not to renew her
1. Does Charlene have a good argument that she is a contractual employee and that the company has a relationship with her that is controlled by either express or implied terms? Explain your answer. A contractual employee is a person who signed a contract before starting to work. Charlene Fisher has a very strong argument that she is a contractual employee. A contract is defined as “an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do so particular thing” (Willis 185). A contract consists of five components. There has to be 1) an agreement 2) consideration 3) legal capacity to contract 4) lawful subject matter and 5) genuine consent to the contract. In this scenario, after Charlene gave an interview …show more content…
According to the textbook, an employment at-will “allows the company or the worker to break the work relationship at any point in time, with or without any particular reason, as long as in doing so, no law is violated (325).” The company is going to claim that Charlene was fired because her one mistake cost them thousands and thousands of dollars and if this occurred once then it could occur again in the future. They will also state that her contract extended the first three years because her work performance those years were satisfactory. However, this year her performance was not good and did not meet their expectations and therefore had to let go of her because she was costing them money instead of bringing in money. If the organization keeps an employee who cannot do their job then not only is the organization harmed but also the employee. If a person cannot do a task then that leads to frustration which then leads to lower employee engagement and job …show more content…
Basically, what this asks is was the employee given any knowledge that doing this action was forbidden? This could be mentioned in the employee handbook or in some form of writing. In this case, Charlene was not given a forewarning of her action. After the incident occurred, she was just told that the company was not happy with her. The second question that should be considered is was the company’s rule reasonably related to the 1)efficient and safe operation of the organization’s business and 2) the performance that the company expects of the employee? At this stage, it is determined whether the rule was reasonable. The next question that should be asked is did the organization actually look into the issue and determine if the employee did violate a rule? If reasonable evidence is found then this test is passed. It is really important that the supervisor investigates what happened and what caused the action. In the scenario, when Charlene made the forecasting error, there was no investigation. The company just decided not to renew her