To: CEO From: HR Re: Memorandum Regarding Constructive Discharge Question presented: How the company should respond to claim regarding constructive discharge in new policy. 1. Whether the doctrine of constructive discharge is relevant Constructive discharge is “a termination of employment by making working conditions so intolerable that an employee feels compelled to leave.” Garner, Bryan A. Blacks Law Dictionary (West Group 2009). Although courts may differ throughout the states, there are generally two main elements to any constructive discharge case: 1) an employer makes a change in working conditions and 2) the change is so intolerable that any reasonable employee would leave.
A Vemont court also ruled that an employee could sue under a promissory estoppel theory in addition to his claim for breach of implied contract. Additionally, if Pat is able to prove that his stance at a school board meeting led to his discharge, he may be able to sue under the Public Policy statute. The onus is upon Pat to prove that the termination was based upon retaliation and malicious
Together, policies and procedures ensure that a point of view held by the governing body of an organization is translated into steps that result in an outcome compatible with that view. Policies and procedures, involve Legislations, which are protected by law. If law is violated, then prosecution procedures take place, it is a nonstop circle. Grievance- procedure Is a written complaint about work conditions, that doesn’t satisfy, upset worker. They can make a formal grievance complaint if they’ve tried solving a problem by talking to manager but they’re not satisfied.
When Pat was hired she was given an employee personnel manual. The employee manual implies the existence of a contract. In addition, the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/ Corrective Action Plan stated that (“If the job performance of an employee is unsatisfactory, the employee will be notified of the deficiency and placed on a Corrective Action Plan. If the employee performance does not improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, termination will follow”). That corrective action limits Newcorp freedom to fire Pat at will.
Therefore, there is a situation of Undisclosed Principal, where an agent acts without disclosing either the existence of a principal or the principal’s identity and the agent is directly liable to the third party. If Newcorp’s senior management is concerned over his public display of his personal views as a basis for his termination the judgment is erroneous. However, there might have been some apprehension over the agency relationship to third parties because principals have both contractual and tort liability for certain acts of their agents (Jennings, 2006). The contract liability of a principal is not only determined by either what he intended or by the limitations agreed to privately by the agent and the principal, but also the third parties have certain contract enforcement rights depending on the nature of the agent’s work and the authority given
When an employer is willing to fire an employee, he should make a report with basic information on the causes of the dismissal accordingly to the employee’s performance. In conclusion, I personally think that depending on the case we are dealing with, either one would be fair and just, but I strongly support that any dismissal has to have a strong reason for it to occur, can be professional or even personal, but a main reason and not just the will of a person. 2º a) Brief for Iron Dynamics Inc v. Alstom Power.  Plaintiff Iron Dynamics Inc. (IDI) brings this suit as a result of its purchase of certain industrial equipment from Defendant Alstom Power Inc. (Alstom)  IDI claims that Alstom breached the purchase agreement for the equipment and breached certain express and implied warranties arising therein.  Alstom expressly disclaimed these implied warranties and excluded consequential and incidental damages in the purchase agreement.
Message 3: Safety Managers concern about injury and damages In the case of the employee slapping a customer, Cost Club could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the employee because the altercation happened during the course of employment. Vicarious liability is often extends from the employee to the employer if the employee is acting within the scope of employment and in this case the employee was on the clock and performing job duties (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman,
Regarding the case of Mr. Bilbo Baggins litigation against Orc Industries Corporation for wrongful dismissal, there are quite a number of relevant legal principles and concepts that apply to the plaintiff’s case. Firstly, when Mr. Baggins was terminated by Orc Industries Corp. they failed to provide him with reasonable notice, which would imply that the company intended to terminate Mr. Baggins on the grounds of just cause. Just cause is a term that is applied when a company intends to terminate an employee for “Employee conduct that amounts to a fundamental breach of employment contract”. More specifically, just cause exists when an employee is guilty of one or more of the following; a serious misconduct (or several minor misconducts over a period of time), habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, willful disobedience, or incompatible conduct. (DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) Orc Industries Corp. however, did not cite any other reasons for terminating Mr. Baggins apart from “dishonesty, and coming to work drunk”.
“Strikes by employees are the essence of concerted activity; workers agree to withhold their labor from the employer in order to pressure the employer to accept their demands. A strike for collective bargaining purposes or for purposes of mutual aid and protection comes under the protection of Section 7” (Cihon 436). The book also distinguishes between economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes. “Economic strikes are strikes over economic issues, such as grievances or a new contract. Unlike unfair labor practice strikers, economic strikers may be permanently replaced by the employer” (Cihon 391).
Anitra Martin Legal risk and opportunity in employment September 29, 2009 Law/531 Legal encounter 1: Newcorp has the right under the common law of employee termination at will. This is a contract of employment for other than a definite term is terminable at will by either party. This common law employer may dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong without being guilty of legal wrong. The only way that pat can prove that they let him go unjustly he would have to prove that they showed discrimination towards him based on race, sex, religion, or age. Legal encounter 2: Newcorp has a liability of sexual harassment because of the fact that Paula ended their relationship and