1.                  This case is an example of one of the exceptions of the Employment At-Will doctrine, which means that the employer has no obligation to give prior notice to the employee in cases of termination. One of the exceptions is if it is restricted by contractual limitations. The policy of the subject company in discharging an employee is to give the latter a prior notice about any unsatisfactory conduct, and be placed under the Corrective Action Plan, and if there is no improvement after a period specified, a termination will follow. Hence, the company did not follow the rules and regulations that it had specified on its company policy.


                     In addition, is it the nature of an employee and employer relationship that laws are interpreted in favor of the employee hence the application of the abovementioned company’s policy must be strictly conformed in favor of Pat. Although it can be argued that the subject of Pat’s termination is not his unsatisfactory conduct but the difficulty of the company to go through on its new venture, the company must still see to it that the employee will not suffer in a manner that will jeopardized her rights.


                     Hence, Newcorp shall be liable for the unjust dismissal of Pat. The discharge of the latter from the company without following the employment contract that both parties have agreed is a major subject of the contract that is for the protection of its employees. Furthermore, if the reason of the company as alleged by Pat is the fact that he stated something in a school that caused a problem to the company’s reputation, it cannot be still the correct reason because a valid reason is necessary for the company in discharging an employee.


            The wordings of the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan is clear indication that the employees of Newcorp has a right to be under an observation in order to make his conduct satisfactory in lieu to the existence of the missions and goals of the company. 


            Hence, as provided under the National Labor Relations Act, if the employer violated under the said contractual obligation, the employee can be entitled to compensation, or payment of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs as to be ruled by the federal or state statute.   


 


2. The case at bar is a great illustration of how an agency relationship exists between an employee and an employer. Sam served as the agent of Newcorp which is the principal. The agent in the role of fiduciary must act in the principal’s best interests. In case at bar the actions of Sam in harassing Paula is clearly an act that deviates from what he is expected to perform. According to Section 219(1) of the Restatement – “A master is liable to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.”


            On the other hand, Newcorp shall be liable if in case, as a principal it has the knowledge that Sam has been using his power and position in the company in order to complete his own interest, the company is solidarily liable to Paula. Under the Sexual harassment under Title VII, the act of sexual harassment presupposes as an intentional conduct. However, if the company does not have knowledge, it will still be liable in cases that it have been that it did not exercise the diligence and supervision of its employees. As an employer, Newcorp must have an up to date supervision over the conduct of its employees. Furthermore, the company’s awareness to what is happening within its organization must also be known and any matters that are not in accordance to the policy of the organization must be given proper investigation.


            Hence, in the case at bar, if there is a sufficient evidence to prove that Newcorp lacks the necessary diligence on supervision to the conduct of Sam, especially to his treatment with Paula, the company will be liable. The degree of its liability is only vicarious but could be solidarity if it has shown that it has knowledge of the incident but still did not make any actions in order to prevent or reprimand Sam of his actions.


3.         According to OSH Act, Article 5, each employer are required to furnish employees which are free from hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees, and also employers must comply with occupational safety and health standards as promulgated. Newcorp must see to it that Paul will not suffer from any illnesses that would subsequently cause his death. Furthermore, it the duty of the employer to furnish each employees’ employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or physical harm to his employees.


Also under Sec. 8 of the same Act, the Secretary is allowed by law to investigate the place of business of the employer. In the case at bar, Newcorp already investigated the place. However, what is necessary that the findings of the Secretary upon further investigation are necessary in order to prove the hazardous work place.


            On the case of his acquisition of his claustrophobic, which he claims that he is entitled to an amount as prescribed under the workmen’s compensation. It is right for the author to define what Personal Injury is. Personal injury shall include a disease or disability, which is due to causes and condition, which are characteristic of and peculiar to the business of the employer and which arises out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the public is generally exposed outside of the employment shall not compensible. I believe that the phobia he acquired must still first be consulted to known doctor authorized to check whether he acquired it due to his work.


            If it has been found that Newcorp did not adhere to what is provided by the Act, he is liable to pay, under Sec. 8 of the same act, the sum of not more that ,000.00 for each violation.  


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top