Employee rights and workplace safety

Employee Rights / Safety

Employee Rights and Safety: A Case Study

The individual in question is now out of a job, due mainly to circumstances that were out of her control. Yes, it is imperative for an organization to punish those who break its policies. Yet, where is the evidence in this case that point to the individual in question? Although the organization she worked for had the right to take action against the employee who had brought the drugs into the facility, its mass layoffs and coerced lie detector tests create a situation where the individual in question was wrongfully terminated.

Employers Rights

The organization was essentially acting in a reaction to the presence of drugs within its facility. According to the general rule for employment, the organization believed it had the right to terminate the individual in question based on the concept of employment-at will. This concept is defined as "an employee who us hired for an indefinite period of time without an employment contract is terminable at-will by the employer without restrictions," (Frank & Breslow 2000). Thus, the organization did have the right to terminate her employment at will based on reasons unspecified in whatever employment contract had been signed upon her attendance at the location. Being that the individual was working within a private-sector company, her rights as an employee might have been subject to this style of managing employees within an organization. Here, the research suggests that "These groups of employees have historically enjoyed dissimilar levels of protection from wrongful dismissal," (Frank & Breslow 2000). This was most likely the rationale that influenced the organization to take such drastic actions as it did.

Employee Polygraph Protection Act

However, California had been one of the first states to begin to regulate the at-will rule. In this case, an employee "may be only terminated for 'good cause' or just cause,'" (Frank & Breslow 2000). This is essentially based on a covenant of good faith, where termination decisions made in bad faith are seen as a violation of public policy law. This could lead a court to decide that the individual had been wrongfully terminated as a violation of public policy. In fact, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) created and enacted by the federal government helps protect many employees within the private sector from being subjected to lie detector tests. California is one of only a handful of states that recognize the public policy exception to the at-will concept. Here, the research posits that "Under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State," (Muhl 2001 p 4). Since the Polygraph Protection Act is currently in place, this makes the termination of the individual's employment is a violation of public employment.

Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act

Moreover, the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act could have also been violated in the mass layoffs undertaken by the organization. This has been in federal law since 1989 (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). According to the research, this piece of legislation "offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs," (U.S. Department 2012). Since the individual's termination was stated as a layoff, she should have had the minimum of 60 days notice before her actual termination. Her termination can be considered a mass layoff because of the total of 98 employees included in the layoff. This act states that layoffs "will result in an employment loss at the employment site during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees, or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer's active workforce," (U.S. Department of Labor 2012).