If Newcorp can produce the Corrective Action Plan, the company will have the supported evidence to terminate Ms. Grey base on unsatisfactory performance. In the employee manual signed by Ms. Grey at the start of employment, the company states “If the job performance of an employee is unsatisfactory, the employee will be notified of the deficiency and placed on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). If the employee performance does not improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, termination will follow.” Ms. Grey will not have a case. If Newcorp cannot produce the Corrective Action Plan, Ms. Grey will have a case. The court will most likely upheld the employee manual for terminating employees for unsatisfactory performance.
ISSUE: At issue is whether the misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, NMSA 1978, Sections 51-1-1 to 51-1-54 (Repl. Pamp.1987). RULE: In this case, the hearing officer misapprehended the standard of "misconduct" as set forth in Mitchell V. Lovington and in this opinion. Specifically, the hearing officer defined "misconduct" as denoting "a material breach of the contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer's best interests." APPLICATION: The district court ruled that Rodman's behavior prior to February 15 constituted misconduct; that her acts of February 15, considered in light of her previous history, constituted misconduct; and that she was terminated for misconduct.
1. Do these employer statements constitute an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not? In response to the statements provided by the employer, it is observed that there is some degree of coercion and threatening accusations made in these statements, based upon Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. These statements constitute a threat because they demonstrate that the company was making attempts to influence employees regarding the union vote by making viable threats regarding existing benefit packages.
What should the court decide? Why? > Background check is very important before hiring an employee because it presents the potential liability of employers for the harmful acts of the people they hire. Employers are generally responsible for the actions of their agents so they should avoid negligent hiring. If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring.
With all of the different working conditions, wages, races, and experience that we saw is Hollitz chapter 2, we can make a generalization that the worker’s level of distress was high. There are three questions that come to mind. First, overall do the working conditions appear to be improving or getting worse? Second, What do workers think about their conditions? Third, would you agree to what William Sumner said that it was not the role of the government to improve the conditions of the working classes, the claim of some writers that employers treated workers as a mere commodity, Sumner also asserted, was “ludicrous” in the “cold light of reason?” After some reading all the sources I can say that conditions got worse then were fixed later, some workers did not like their jobs, and I do not agree with Sumner’s argument.
A defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Unlike the question of whether a duty exists, the issue of whether a defendant breached a duty of care is decided by a jury as a question of fact. Under the traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions actually caused the plaintiff's injury. This is often referred to as "but-for" causation.
The owner of the craft show could be liable for the accident of his employee under Vicarious Liability. Vicarious liability occurs when one person is held responsible for the negligence of another. Typically, this applies in an employment context, where the employer (master) is responsible for the negligent acts of the employee (servant) which occur within the context of the employment relationship. (Aaron Larson, Law Offices of Aaron Larson, October, 2003). Although
Negligent Tort Tort is actually termed under law of tort, which clearly defined it as those situations or conditions where the illegal conduct of one party causes harm to other that is party A had to face loss due to unethical or wrongful deed of party B. Tort can be either negligent that is unintentional or intentional. (Larson, 2003).Examples of intentional torts is fraud, defamation, offence, insult, assault or interference etc. For example, during a business meeting an employer suffers from a reputation loss or insult due to the wrong deeds of another employer, to whom he had fight. Negligence tort refers to the conditions under which the law will hold an individual, who has a duty of care to another individual; that is legal personnel will grab the person who is responsible for any harm or damage his negligence may have caused the injured party.
Materiality is defined by the FASB as an omission that would affect a normal person by a misstatement such as using earnings management to skew the true earnings or revenue. This calls in to play the unethical behavior that earnings management places on the public (violating AICPA Code of Professional Ethics). SOX further required management and accountants to be cognizant of the material errors that financial misstatement and false reporting could have from an ethical standpoint. It holds them accountable for all financial reporting from their company. This includes criminally and financial accountability.
Termination • Some people have been terminated for whistleblowing even though it is illegal. If you are terminated, you have to prove a whistleblowing violation. For example, an employee needs to prove that he engaged in a protected activity such as asking for overtime pay, reporting sexual harassment or applying for medical leave, and that the employer took action to prevent it. If you are fired for whistleblowing, it is within your right to file a lawsuit against the employer. Mistrust • One of the effects whistleblowing can have on a company or organization is a lack of trust in the internal system.