Abstract:
The following paper will be written from the point of view of a manager/supervisor and will address various scenarios that may arrise concerning an employee’s behaviour and actions, and how to effectively adress them within the context of employment-at-will doctrine and the liability to the employer.
Scenario 1:
This scenario deals with an employee who has failed to learn the computer applications that are basic to the job requirements. The scenario assumes that the employee has received a few months of training and support, yet is unable to complete the required tasks in an efficient and effective manner.
In analyzing this scenario, the first step I would take in addressing the issue at hand, is to formally counsel the employee in writing, as the information presented does not state if that has been done. The counseling would serve multiple purposes. First, it would serve as a means to formally document the employee’s lack of skills, competency, and abilities, as it relates to the requirement of the job. Secondly, it would clearly delineate the expectations of the position, the criteria under which they will be evaluated, and when the next evaluation will take place. The counseling would also inform the employee that failure to improve may result in administrative action, up to and including termination. Lastly it would require the employee acknowledge via signature that they have been counseled.
The reason I have chosen to take the written counseling approach, rather than immediate termination is because the information provided is vague, in that it does not specify whether the training and support the employee has received is adequate. It also does not state whether the employee has been informed of her lack of performance and inability to fulfill the job requirements satisfactorily. While the employment-at-will doctrine states that an employer can terminate an employee at their discretion “for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all,” (Halbert & Elaine, 2012) .This approach would mitigate the risk posed by future suits filed, if the employee is terminated in the future. The reason being is that should a suit be filed for wrongful termination based on frivolous allegations, the documentation would show that the business terminated the employee at their discretion for the good of the company, and not for reasons which would be unlawful, such as age, race, sexual orientation, or any other protected category.(Civil Rights Act, 1964)
Scenario 2:
This scenario deals with an employee who bursts into rage when criticized and is frequently late to work. The scenario assumes that the employee’s boss has attempted to correct the employee’s behavior and address the company’s late policy to no avail.
Bad behaviors in the workplace decrease productivity, affect the business environment, and can have a financial impact on the company. (Frost, 2013)When dealing with problems such as persistent tardiness or something as serious as financial fraud, immediate attention to the issue is of upmost importance. It is important that management and senior leadership establish a standard for behavior that sets the expectations for employees to adhere to. (Frost, 2013)
In this case there is clearly a late policy that has been established by the company which I will assume is contained in the employee handbook. I will also make the assumption that the employee handbook includes policies on behavioral expectations and consequences for breaking those policies. I would first send out a public notice reminding the employees of the company’s policy on tardiness and conduct expected at the company, referencing the employee handbook. The notice would also clearly state the potential consequences that an employee may be subjected to, as a result of non-compliance. Secondly, I would talk to the manager of the employee, and instruct him/her to document the occurrences of the particular behaviors in question, actions taken to inform the employee, and corrective measures taken. I would clearly articulate to the manager that he/she needs to follow company guidelines in addressing the unacceptable behavior, providing direct feedback, and ultimately taking action in a timely manner. I would also, along with the manager, address the individual employee in a private area to bring the negative behavior to their attention, giving specific examples of the behavior and the policies it violates. (Frost, 2013) I would also reinforce the consequences that may result should the employee not correct the behaviors in question.
If the employee continues to display the negative behavior and refuses to try to improve the situation, the manager needs to place this person on the fast track towards termination. Often this involves recording a series of well-documented verbal and then written feedback about the behavior. Strictly following company’s protocol on termination, which often times involves a period for the employee to address the questionable behavior. If this period lapses and does not result in improved behavior, then the employee needs to be terminated.
Scenario 3:
This scenario deals with addressing a situation in which the employee takes a day off from work for religious reasons, without management consent, after the employees had been notified no time off could be taken without prior approval from management. It also presents the fact that the employee is encouraging other employees to organize and form a union to “protect themselves,” during regular work hours.
In regards to the employee taking a day off from work for religious reasons without prior management approval, I would address this issue with talking to the employee and explaining the importance of adhering to policy and guidance provided by the company. I would also document the occurrence, and work with the employee to establish a leave schedule in advance for any future time off the employee might want to take. This will afford the company the opportunity to mitigate the absence by ensuring that there is enough coverage, it would constitute management consent, and would allow the employee to exercise her employee benefits. This approach would address both parties concerns.
In regards to the employee encouraging others to organize based on the information given there is no action that the employer can take to prevent that. While the employment-at-will doctrine allows employers to terminate an employee “for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all,” there are some exceptions. (Frost, 2013) One of these exceptions is that the U.S. Supreme Court announced that employers can’t use employment-at-will to “intimidate or coerce its employees with respect to their self organization.” (Frost, 2013) This ruling by the U.S. Supreme court protecting employee’s rights to organize came about based on the case of the National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, where a ruling was held by Justice Hughes, in that, “Employees have a fundamental right to organize and select representatives of their own choosing for collective bargaining. Discrimination or coercion by an employer to prevent the free exercise of this right is a proper subject for condemnation by competent legislative authority.” (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 1937) The only item that could be addressed is the fact that the employee is encouraging others to organize during “regular work hours.” Even this, based on the information given can’t really be addressed appropriately, because the employee can be engaging in this activity while on break, which is taken during the course of a regular work day. The information provided does not specify if their engagement in this activity is hindering their productivity, or affecting their job performance. Assuming that this employee was engaging in this activity the majority of the regular work day, and neglecting their job duties, the only action the employer could take, would be to counsel the employee on their job performance and work product, but not on their willingness to organize.
Scenario 4:
The scenario involves an employee becoming romantically involved with their supervisor, after being informed of the company policy prohibiting employees from engaging in a romantic relationship with their supervisors, as written in the employee handbook provided to the employee. The scenario asks us to describe the steps I would take in the context of policies and procedures when addressing this issue.
The involvement of a manager or supervisor in a romantic relationship with a subordinate can greatly increase an organizations liability in the aftermath of a failed romance. Other employees tend to see supervisor-subordinate relationships negatively, because of the potential for unfair work related outcomes, such as promotions, pay raises, bonuses, or perceived superior work assignments. For this reason I assume the company has made it a point to include a company policy prohibiting this behavior.
In this scenario, I am under the assumption that an investigation substantiating the relationship has already occurred, as the information provided affirms that they are engaged in a consensual relationship. That being the case, I would immediately terminate the supervisor for engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate. I would clearly articulate in the formal dismissal documentation, the violation of the company policy. I would also provide a written counseling to be included in the HR file of the subordinate, emphasizing the company policy relating to supervisor-subordinate relationships, and clearly articulate the expected behavior in regards to that matter.
The reason that I would terminate the supervisor is, because as a supervisor, he is entrusted with enforcing and upholding the company’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and leading by example. Not removing a supervisor that clearly violates and has zero regards for the company’s established policies, sets a company atmosphere of non-compliance and disregard for corporate authority.
Conclusion:
While employers in most states enjoy employment-at-will, a business must ensure that the cause for termination is not based on criteria deemed illegal. While there are few exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, they do exist. It is prudent that an employer in exercising the doctrine do for valid reasons and not for reasons which infringe on an employee’s rights as determined by law.

References
Frost, S. (2013). How to Deal with Bad Behavior in the Workplace. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from Chron: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/deal-bad-behavior-workplace-12304.html
Halbert, T., & Elaine, I. (2012). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 7th Edition. Mason: Cengage Learning.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (United States Supreme Court April 12, 1937).
Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964)