off the job behaviors
1. Oiler's employee rights were violated. Though balancing employee rights with appropriate discipline is an ongoing challenge for HR professionals. But in this case of Oiler, the work place behavior of the employer had not changed and there is no problem, with the co-employers also.
Also in the own time, the company have no rights about the way he dress. Hence there is also no such challenge for the Winn-Dixie that it has to terminate Oiler. Hence I would consider that Winn-Dixie has violated the employee rights of Oiler. Also his social security has been disabled..The company is also entitled to terminate an employee's contract if his or her behavior has negative legal implications.As an adult, Peter Oiler has the autonomy to behave as he pleases as long as his behavior does not affect other people. There are no legal provisions that prevent men from wearing women's clothing. Similarly, there law does not prohibit women from donning men's clothing
2. Consequently, Peter Oiler's behavior was acceptable. Instead of firing him, Winn-Dixie stores should have sought dialogue with Mr. Oiler in order to discuss his out-of-work conduct. Effective human resource management systems should examine different alternatives Instead of using such an approach, Winn-Dixie Stores inadvertently terminated Oiler's contract.
3. Based on Oiler's punishment, it is clear that the organization has established a hot stove approach for dealing with employee's misconduct. Even though Peter Oiler was among the most dedicated employees, the company could not tolerate his behavior.In such as suspension, fines and warnings would have been used if Winn-Dixie employed the progressive discipline approach. However, this was not the case.The severe disciplinary action can be taken for an offense is so serious that immediate dismissal is appropriate such as theft, sexual harassment or violence.And since the petter Oiler has not done anything he should not be taken...