Is Mary an independent contractor or an employee?
Based on the scenario, Mary is considered to be an employee of the Little Lamb Company. After evaluation of the significant legal differences between being an Independent contractor and an employee, the results were very clear. Mary transitioned to an employee of Little Lamb Company when she was requested to work on a new project and help the company to complete the entire project. At that time, Mary began taking instructions from the enterprise supervisor for the new project. As time went by, and she was required to use the organization’s equipment and materials while adhering to company work schedules. After two years of her work, Mary was treated like an at-will-employee because when fiscal …show more content…
The employer/employee relationship experienced some significant changes due to the transition to the economic conditions that forced the company to reduce their budget. Although the company still required Mary's services, hiring an equally qualified outside source was not necessarily a cost-effective option for the enterprise. If the company was not facing economic challenges, it is true that the relationship between the Mary and her employer would still be in effect to date.
Is Mary’s release legal under the doctrine of employment-at-will?
According to the doctrine of employment at will which refers to the presumption that employment is for an indefinite time and could be terminated either by employer or employee, Mary’s release was legal. The employment contract between Mary and her employer was terminated when the Economic conditions became unfavorable to the company; this was according to the doctrine of employment- at-will that guarantees either of the parties to conclude an agreement. But due to the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, the theory has been criticized for its harsh results and the critics have looked to Labor unions to equalize bargaining power on the side of workers (Hodgkinson and Ford, 2012). Such vocal unions’ voices can demand good faith bargaining on the side of the employer, job security among other …show more content…
It requires that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using awkward means to deny their obligations or denying what another party agreed on. Mary is asked to leave by the employer when the economic conditions become unfavorable but when a new contract is acquired by the company which requires her services, an outsider is offered the opportunity without Mary’s consultation, yet she had been working for the enterprise for some time. However, it was right for the company to reinstate Mary as one of their employees when they acquired the new contract. Having assigned Mary for the second time and working closely with the supervisor while following the directives of the company she might have consistently received favorable evaluations and she had a right to claim positive performance reviews for her long job. This required job security and other benefits which she did not get when the company acquired a new contract, hence a breach of an implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
In conclusion, the relationship between the employer and employee should be properly established. The employee is protected by the guidelines that outline the employer/ employee relationship to ensure that both parties are not exploited in any way. In most cases the workers are most vulnerable to exploitation by their employers. However,
Based on the scenario, Mary is considered to be an employee of the Little Lamb Company. After evaluation of the significant legal differences between being an Independent contractor and an employee, the results were very clear. Mary transitioned to an employee of Little Lamb Company when she was requested to work on a new project and help the company to complete the entire project. At that time, Mary began taking instructions from the enterprise supervisor for the new project. As time went by, and she was required to use the organization’s equipment and materials while adhering to company work schedules. After two years of her work, Mary was treated like an at-will-employee because when fiscal …show more content…
The employer/employee relationship experienced some significant changes due to the transition to the economic conditions that forced the company to reduce their budget. Although the company still required Mary's services, hiring an equally qualified outside source was not necessarily a cost-effective option for the enterprise. If the company was not facing economic challenges, it is true that the relationship between the Mary and her employer would still be in effect to date.
Is Mary’s release legal under the doctrine of employment-at-will?
According to the doctrine of employment at will which refers to the presumption that employment is for an indefinite time and could be terminated either by employer or employee, Mary’s release was legal. The employment contract between Mary and her employer was terminated when the Economic conditions became unfavorable to the company; this was according to the doctrine of employment- at-will that guarantees either of the parties to conclude an agreement. But due to the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, the theory has been criticized for its harsh results and the critics have looked to Labor unions to equalize bargaining power on the side of workers (Hodgkinson and Ford, 2012). Such vocal unions’ voices can demand good faith bargaining on the side of the employer, job security among other …show more content…
It requires that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using awkward means to deny their obligations or denying what another party agreed on. Mary is asked to leave by the employer when the economic conditions become unfavorable but when a new contract is acquired by the company which requires her services, an outsider is offered the opportunity without Mary’s consultation, yet she had been working for the enterprise for some time. However, it was right for the company to reinstate Mary as one of their employees when they acquired the new contract. Having assigned Mary for the second time and working closely with the supervisor while following the directives of the company she might have consistently received favorable evaluations and she had a right to claim positive performance reviews for her long job. This required job security and other benefits which she did not get when the company acquired a new contract, hence a breach of an implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
In conclusion, the relationship between the employer and employee should be properly established. The employee is protected by the guidelines that outline the employer/ employee relationship to ensure that both parties are not exploited in any way. In most cases the workers are most vulnerable to exploitation by their employers. However,