Human Resource Management 11th Edition by John Ivancevich

Exercise 1

Objective
The primary objective of this exercise is to permit individuals to decide whether actions taken by management are legally defensible under the employment-at-will concept. The exercise illustrates the importance of considering state laws when making termination decisions.
Set Up the Exercise
1. Form groups of six to eight students to analyze and discuss each of the following situations.
2. Groups should first identify employment-at-will exceptions recognized by courts in the state in which their college or university is located or in a state assigned by the instructor. To do this, students can use Exhibit 15-7 and Web sites such as FindLaw, http://www.findlaw.com, which contain state law information.
3. Each group should then determine whether the terminations described in the situations below are legally justified in their state. Then each group should prepare a brief statement explaining its decision and discussing any applicable employment-at-will exceptions.
4. Review each of the group decisions with the entire class.
Mr. Torosyan
Mr. Torosyan was hired as a chemist in a pharmaceutical company. At the time he was hired, the company's employee handbook clearly stated that employees would not be fired without just cause. The handbook further detailed a process for appealing adverse employment decisions. The company later modified its manual to include a statement that employees were terminable at-will. Mr. Torosyan was sent to a training seminar out of state and upon returning, he submitted an expense report that contained some undocumented items that the company suspected were personal. He was subsequently fired for falsifying his expense report and was denied the option to appeal the termination decision as outlined in the employee handbook.
Ms. Pressman
Ms. Pressman worked as a medical imaging technologist for a chemical company for four years. During her employment, Ms. Pressman learned that her supervisor was involved with a competing company's medical imaging business on his own time. Because Ms. Pressman felt that this created a conflict of interest, she confronted her supervisor about it. Her supervisor became angry, gave her negative performance evaluations over the next year, and she was subsequently terminated for poor performance. During the previous three years, Ms. Pressman's evaluations had consistently indicated that her performance exceeded the company's expectations.
Mr. Mansfield
Mr. Mansfield was a technician in the machine shop of Millfield Corporation. During his employment, he met at lunchtime, during breaks, and after work with employees, attempting to persuade them to start and support a union. After six months of meetings, Mr. Mansfield was informed by his supervisor that he was fired. He was told that he had violated union organization procedures and was using the company premises without permission to organize a union. Therefore, because he had violated the rules about union organizing, he was terminated.