Fluent Essays

Instructions For this assignment, you will search the CSU Online Library for an article that addresses how terminating the employer-employee relationship can be one of the riskiest tasks for an employer. It should discuss the many possible impacts of the termination as well as numerous potential legal hurdles. After choosing your article, briefly summarize the purpose for the article and answer the following questions: What is the authors’ main point, and what evidence is used to support it? How does the termination of the employer-employee relationship create risk and legal issues? How do exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine factor into termination decisions? Begin with an introduction that defines the subject of your critique and your point of view. Identify if your point of view conflicts or agrees with the ideas and point of view of the article’s author.You should then defend your point of view by raising specific issues or aspects of the argument. Offer your own opinion. Explain what you think about the argument. Describe several points from the article with which you agree or disagree. What evidence from the article, your textbook, or additional sources supports your opinion?Conclude your critique by summarizing your argument and re-emphasizing your opinion.Your critique should be a minimum of two pages, not including the title and reference pages. You must use a minimum of three sources, one of which may be your textbook. Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, including in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed.This Article Critique Example provided by the CSU Writing Center shows this type of formatting.If you would like additional information on writing article critiques, review the tutorial  Article Critiques from the CSU Writing Center.Employee Relations Law Journal 49 Vol. 31, No. 1, Summer 2005 Terminating the Employee-Employer Relationship: Ethical and Legal Challenges Dan Van Bogaert and Arthur Gross-Schaefer On late Wednesday afternoon, the day before Thanksgiving, the Director of Development for a small community non-profit organization is called to the Executive Director’s office. The Director of Development has been in her position for two years, and while she has not yet been able to raise large sums of money, she has worked hard and all of her performance reviews have been positive. Upon entering the office, she is surprised that there is another member of the senior staff present, and she can feel a tenseness that is highly unusual for this non-profit which prides itself on its warm, caring, family envi- ronment. She is quickly informed that she is being terminated and, in lieu of notice, she is being given a generous two-week severance payment. When she requests the reason for this sudden termination, the Executive Director slides a legal document entitled Waiver and Confidentiality Agreement over to her. When she refuses to sign the Agreement, the Executive Director tells her that he cannot discuss anything related to the termination. He then tells her that the other senior staff member will accompany her to her office, and that she has 20 minutes to remove all of her personal items. The Executive Director instructs her to not touch her computer, make any phone calls, or take any items belong- ing to the organization. Moreover, she is not to talk to any of the staff members. The other senior staff member walks with her to her office and stands watching carefully as she quickly gathers her personal items. He then escorts her out of the premises to her car. Many employers and managers consider only the legal conse-quences when terminating an employee. In the real-life sce- nario introduced here, the choreography of the termination, from its timing late in the afternoon the day before Thanksgiving, to what was and was not said, to the use of another senior staff mem- ber to watch over the actions of the terminated employee, were carefully planned and directed by the non-profit’s attorney to reduce legal liability. The Executive Director, when asked why he followed this procedure, shared that he was not a legal expert and felt that he had no option but to follow the advice of their attor- ney even though it felt a little unfair, and he knew this process would cause a great deal of stress to the employee. What the Executive Director and counsel failed to consider fully was the Dan Van Bogaert, JD, and Arthur Gross-Schaefer, PhD, are in the Department of Marketing & Business Law at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Dr. Gross-Schaefer may be reached at [email protected] and Dr.Van Bogaert at [email protected]/lmu.edu. ERLJsummer05.qxd 5/4/05 11:52 AM Page 49 Vol. 31, No. 1, Summer 2005 50 Employee Relations Law Journal Terminating the Employee-E299 Professional Updates Employment Law The concept of ‘a fair go all round’ is the driving force behind the unfair dismissal legislation as enshrined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act).1 This implies that the interests of all parties involved in a dispute over the termination of an employee must be balanced against each other.2 Specifi cally, the employer’s interest in conducting an enterprise often needs to be balanced against protection of the employee from arbitrary termination. Established case law surrounding unfair dismissal demonstrates that in deciding whether a dismissal is unfair, Fair Work Australia will consider not only whether a ‘valid reason’ existed for the termination of an employee but also whether the employee was afforded procedural fairness. In other words, whether the process that the employer undertook in coming to its decision to terminate was fair. It will also examine (in accordance with the Fair Work Act) whether in the circumstances in question, the dismissal was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’. In the case of a small business, the court will also look at the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. • Recent cases provide useful background on concept of unfairness in dismissal cases • Vital to have detailed records to form the basis of reasons for dismissal • Fairness is relevant in the reason for dismissal, but also in the process undertaken by the employer By Brendan Taylor, Solicitor, Swaab Attorneys Terminating an employee — reducing the risks of unfair dismissal claims Not all employees have unfair dismissal rights The following general categories of employees are excluded from the federal unfair dismissal jurisdiction: • an employee who has not been ‘dismissed’ within the meaning of the Fair Work Act3 • an employee who is not a ‘national system employee’ employed by a ‘national system employer’ as defi ned in the Fair Work Act.4 However with the recent referral by the states (with exception of Western Australia) of the vast majority of their industrial relations powers, this distinction has little relevance in the private sector other than in WA. In WA, employees of sole traders, partnerships and other employers who are not ‘constitutional corporations’, cannot access the federal unfair dismissal jurisdiction and will instead need to access their state system • an employee earning more than the high income threshold (currently $113,800) if not covered by an award, enterprise agreement or certain instruments which are listed in the transitional provisions5 • an employee who has not lodged their application within 14 days (other than in ‘exceptional circumstances’) • an employee who has not served out a ‘period of employment’ for a ‘minimum employment period’ (as defi ned in the Fair Work Act6). It usually means 12 months for employees of ‘small business employers’ and six months for other employees • an employee dismissed due to ‘genuine red