According to Franz those two common law doctrines included; that the employment was an implied-in-fact contract. An implied-in-fact contract is evidenced by the employer by the very act of hiring an individual, and as such is implying that the employee will not be fired without just cause. In Tom Kinder's case, the company may have had a just cause, but made no attempt to either inform Tom nor to help Tom overcome the obstacle keeping him from accomplishing his job duties.
The second common law doctrine is best stated by the fact that an employee is allowed to collect compensation based on a breach of contract.
"It is based on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which is implied in all contracts as a matter of law. Conceptually, the covenant requires that contract rights be exercised in a manner that does not violate the covenant." (Franz pg 33).
Keeping these two constraints in mind, management could have done much better in regards to how the situation was handled.
Concerning the employees, each individual will have different 'me' issues depending on where, when and who they work with or for. The 'me' issues will also depend on their job title and functions
Being a strong leader while implementing such a drastic measure as the one being recommended against Tom is a very important element to success or failure of the venture.
Of course, if management had been a lot stronger in the first place in providing direction for Tom, this situation may have been clipped in the bud from the very start.
"Some leaders fail because they provide too much or too little direction and coaching. The best leaders/coaches find the balance point that challenges people while showing confidence in people's abilities to succeed." (Thornton 2000-page 103).
A written out policy regarding the procedures to be followed during the entire termination procedure could have been very helpful as well. The stakeholders in this particular scenario all seem to be in a lose-lose situation.
Tom will lose because he is the one being...
The company will suffer the loss of a formerly excellent employee, and the opportunity will be there for that same employee to sue the company, which will be costly and time consuming, as well as demoralizing to other employees who see this type of event happening.
"There isn't a person in the world who doesn't have the desire to be someone, to have significance. Even the least ambitious and unassuming wants to be regarded highly by others." (Maxwell 2003-page 12)
The company's management should keep these admonitions in mind in any future termination situations. First, a spelled out plan, written and posted for all employees to see and peruse would probably make real good sense. Management could also see to it that regularly held seminars or meetings take place that can look into problems with employees who may be experiencing tough times. Thirdly, the company should ensure that the union initiates training or workshops for all employees to watch for signs of trouble in the workplace. Plenty of signs were there in Tom's case and no one seemed to notice until termination proceedings were instigated, and in this case it was too little and too late.
Works Cited
Franz, Wolfgang W. (1990) Wrongful Employment Termination and Resulting Economic Losses, Journal of Forensic Economics, Vol 3, Issue 2, pp 31-47
Kleiman, Lawrence S., Denton, David W., (1998) Wrongful Termination, ADA, and the Courts, Journal of Individual Employment Rights, Vol 8, Issue 3, pp 193-218
Maxwell, John C. (2003) Relationships 101, Nashville: Thomas Nellon Publishers
Paul, Robert J., Townsend, James B., (1993) Wrongful Termination: Balancing Employer and Employee Rights - A Summary with Recommendations, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol 6 Issue 1, pp 69-82
Thornton, Paul B. (2000) Be the Leader: Make the Difference. Torrance, CA: Griffin Publishing Group
