Wal-Mart workers filed 30 counts of unfair labor practice with the National labor Relations Board (NLRB). The representations alleged “widespread and egregious attempts by Wal-Mart to silence e workers who have been calling for a change of course at the company” (Our Wal-Mart files over 30 New Counts of Unfair Labor Practices Against Wal-Mart for Attempts to Silence Associates, 2013). These example show that of a US organizations that still continue to abuse labor practices both within our country as well as internationally. Although at times these companies have faced tarnished images, these businesses continue to reap profits while executives and stock holders swim in the benefits. Some common items that we buy that are made in sweatshops are shoes, clothes, coffee, and
Title VII makes employers liable to prevent and stop sexual harassment of employees. Under Title VII, covered employers must: - take reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment - take reasonable care to promptly correct sexual harassment that has occurred. In this case the employer can take a number of steps to minimize liability exposure to sexual harassment claims in the future: - Adopt a company policy against sexual harassment. - Establish an appropriate grievance procedure. Assure that employee complaints such as Brittany’s will be investigated and appropriate action taken if needed.
What is the difference between sexual harassment and gender discrimination? The primary difference between sexual harassment and gender discrimination is that sexual harassment involves an employee making unwanted physical contact or verbal remarks of an inappropriate nature. Gender discrimination is when an employee is slighted or receives unfavorable treatment in the workplace for no reason other than their gender. If a female applicant is of equal or greater skill than a male counterpart applicant and is passed over for employment simply because she is a woman would be an example of gender discrimination in the workplace. What is “quid pro quo” sexual harassment?
ASSINGMENT 1 BUS 520 Argue for the use of Consensual Relationship Agreements (CRAs) in your current (or future) workplace. A Consensual Relationship Agreement (CRA) is essentially a written “contract” in which the romantically involved parties acknowledge the following: Their relationship is voluntary and consensual, they agree to abide by the employers antidiscrimination , anti-harassment, and workplace conduct policies, they promise to report any perceived harassment to management, if it occurs, they agree to behave professionally and not allow the relationship to affect their work performance, they agree to avoid behavior that offends others in the workplace and they agree to not engage in any favoritism (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011). This is especially vital when one person is of higher ranking and has the authority to influence opportunities to other employees. A majority of companies do not have any policy in place. The dynamics of the workplace was jeopardized because several people dated romantically.
The implied duty of fidelity protects business interests and imposes a obligation employee must not disclose any information or trade secrets of their employers business. Throughout the course of employment, an employer will obtain information, which may possibly be confidential information. If an employee’s position is highly ranked then there will be possibilities that the employer has acquired potential confidential business information that may be disclosed this type of situation will need to be addressed and employers will need protection. In Thomas v Farr plc. , the categories of information was sectioned out to address what type of information is not to be disclosed when the employment contract has ended.
When a resignation is received, HR should take reasonable steps to do an outtake interview with the employee to find out why they are leaving and whether the company can take steps to improve the work environment. These outtake interviews should be kept in company records should a complaint arise, so that it can be demonstrated that the company did not have the requisite intent to constructive discharge employees. Finally, the company should make it a policy to address all employee complaints. This will not only foster better communication with employees, but allow the company to demonstrate that it has not constructive discharged an
1989) the court ruling stated, "To prove constructive discharge, the employees must demonstrate that their working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in their position would be compelled to resign." With this ruling, we will have a picture of the reasonable person in our minds. This reasonable person will be compared to the employee’s actions and be judged accordingly. This will show that the employee did not have intolerable work
Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, employees who disclose illegal or improper activities are fully protected. The secretary is obviously troubled by the situation at her work. Refusing to prepare false expense reports for her boss is one way that the secretary expresses her feeling strongly that her company should do what is right. “The whistleblower profile is such that, if nothing is done to respond to their internal complaints, they often feel compelled to disclose to authorities outside the company-even to the media” (Halbert, Ingulli, 2012). In the primary interest of our entity, its incumbent upon employers to find a right balance between the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine to avoid liabilities associated with the violations of the exceptions.
It is to stop you getting hurt at work or ill through work. Anti-discrimination law: this relates to race, sex, age, disability equality, transgender, religion and belief equality and equality for lesbians, gays and bisexual people. Data protection act: controls how your personal information is used. CRB checks: to help employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups. 1.3 Outline why legislation relating to employment exists.
An important example is the Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): “Plaintiff Vinson claimed that she had submitted to the unwanted sexual advances of her supervisor in order to hold onto her job. Although her supervisor denied her charges and the bank he worked for disavowed any knowledge of misbehavior, her suit finally reached the Supreme Court after six years of litigation, where a unanimous Court determined that the creation of a “hostile work environment” through sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination”