They could have explained to the managers that immediate termination is not the proper form of discipline for the offenses mentioned. They would have also told them that all employees involved would have to have the same disciplinary action taken to show that they are not being bias to some employees and not others. By law, generally, we go by legislation, statutes, and regulations made by states and by the federal government on multiple subjects for the good of the public and public welfare. “Laws do not, and are not intended to, incorporate ethical principles or values, but sometimes ethical standards will be reflected in laws.” (The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice. ( n.d. ) p. 12).
I think the bank terminated said employee because it would have been a conflict of interest to keep this employee employed. In my opinion, it did not make good business sense to keep this particular employee on the payroll. Legally speaking, I agree with the decision of the courts because the bank really didn’t break or violate any policy when it gave the employee the ultimatum of abandoning his counterclaim against the bank’s customer or keep his job. Morally speaking, I’m really not sure here because it seems as if all the facts have not been presented in totality. I think that the courts have a responsibility to society and to the public to uphold the law regardless as to what type of law is in question, i.e., business, employment, etc.
Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall. Whittaker, W. (2005). Compensatory Time vs. Cash Wages: Amending the Fair Labor Standards Act? Retrieved June 5, 2014, from: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/vieewcontent.cgi?article=1205
The company had accomplished multiple unfair practices, from interrogating employees to not recognizing their bargaining rights. After reading the case study I couldn't help but side with the union. The way Larry Melton went about finding information from his employees was interrogating and disrespectful. They had valid persuasive arguments against the company including to threaten an employee for refusing to reveal the identities of employees who attended a union meeting. There is no reason Melton should be personally calling multiple employees on finding out who was involved.
The court will most likely upheld the employee manual for terminating employees for unsatisfactory performance. The employee manual will be an implied contract and Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. will support his claim. Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. the court rule in favor of Champion Jogbra, Inc. because the company put a clause in the employee manual stating: “They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any commitment to any employee concerning how individual employment action can, should, or will be
Barlow, D.H., & Craske, M.G. (2007). Mastery of your anxiety and panic, 4th ed. workbook). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Everyone related to this company is affected by this situation. Investigators and employees didn’t want to get involves because they didn’t want to investigate their own bosses or be involve in conflicts of interest. I think their claims were reasonable but don’t think action should be taken upon them. But to prevent this issue there should be a policy or clause addressing this issue with its consequences so it doesn’t happen again. 3.
They do not have the ambition nor do they want any responsibility of work since its unpleasant (Clark, 2008). An example is when management is controlling the employees, they will avoid work this means skipping or calling in sick on a regular basis. This also means that they may not make the quotas or requirement that is on the line. In the y theory the company accepts their employees which create a total opposite environment than the x theory. Employees under the y theory have potential, commitment, creativity, want the achievements or responsibility, self direction, and solve organizational problems that arise (Clark, 2008).
If it can be proven that it was the employee’s own negligence that contributed to the cause of the accident, then the employee would not be entitled to any recovery from the employer. Voluntary assumption of risk was the second defence that the courts accepted to reject an employer liability. The doctrine provided that “if employees were aware or ought to have been aware of the hazards present in the workplace, then they were deemed to have assumed those risks as conditions of their employment and could not sue their employer for damages in the event that an injury was subsequently caused by those hazards.” (Tucker, 2002). The fellow-servant doctrine, is the third defence accepted in the courts, it held that “an employee could not recover damages from his employer where the accident has been, at least in part, caused by the action of a fellow worker, can be viewed as an extension of the voluntary assumption of risk doctrine.” (Tucker, 2002). If an employee was injured by the action of one of their coworkers, then the liability would not fall on the employer.
Public safety should be of the utmost priority, regardless of labor issues. These issues should be resolved through mediation without service interruption being an option. Public safety is too important to allow an internal squabble to jeopardize it. Public Employees Have No Right to Strike The word strike is word used to describe a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to do their jobs. Usually, a strike takes place in reaction to employee protest.