The paper "Human Resource In Organisation - Catastrophe Concept " is a good example of human resources case study. Making human resource decisions can sometimes be complicated (Stone 2008). As seen in this document, terminating an employee’ s employment successfully to avoid substantiated legal claims requires various considerations. After a serious downturn at Catastrophe Concept, Karen’ s boss wants how to terminate Karen’ s employment. There are various factors to consider given the fact that Karen had not breached her employment contract and had no serious misconduct. Moreover, concerning her employment status, she is a senior staff.
Note that her employment contract was only a letter welcoming her to the company. The Workplace Relations Act would be useful in evaluating various options that would allow a successful termination. These options include termination under the basis of breach of contract, redundancy, misconduct, performance, and by issuing a reasonable notice. In addition, it would be advisable for Catastrophe Concept to make legitimate restraints on Karen against working for a competitor, soliciting and poaching its employees, and exposing or using confidential information. The consequences that would result in case Karen contravened these restraints are also explored, and an example of a restraint trade clause given. It is possible to terminate successfully and within the legal provisions Karen’ s employment under the prevailing circumstances.
It is worth to note that the Workplace Relations Act that governs employer-employee relations protects employees against unfair dismissal, but also makes provisions under which employees can be terminated. In this respect, therefore, it is crucial to consider certain key factors relating to Karen that would allow termination of her employment. First is that she had no serious misconduct and has not breached either express or implied terms of the employment contract.
In fact, there are no express terms agreed upon during her coming on board. Even so, the provision under breach of contract requires that the employer pay a certain amount equivalent to “ her outstanding annual and long service leave entitlements” (GWADCEP 2008). On the other hand, instant dismissal would be possible if her conduct was serious enough to threaten mutual confidence and trust between her and the company. Therefore, it is not appropriate to base her termination on breach of contract or instant dismissal. There are also other provisions for employment termination that do not apply under Karen’ s circumstances.
Given that there is no existing written agreement detailing the period of her employment, and since the company is still operating, it is would not be lawful to terminate her employment is merely because the company experienced a downturn in sales. In addition, her circumstances would not fully justify the provision under redundancy since the company might need another sales manager. Redundancy applies when there are “ genuine operational reasons” such as structural, technological, or economic reasons (GWADCEP 2008). What would have been most applicable as the basis for her termination is her performance, although certain circumstances outlaw that.
It is apparent that the sales have been declining and this could indicate poor performance. However, the dilemma with this approach is the lack of written evidence. The company’ s record indicates that her performance is acceptable. Under the terms provided in the Workplace Relations Act, Karen is entitled to know if her work performance was not satisfactory, “ given a chance to implement change and be warned if her performance is still unsatisfactory” (GWADCEP 2008).
Furthermore, there ought to have been written records of these actions by the employers that Karen has signed accordingly; nonetheless, that is not the case. Therefore, considering all these circumstances and the limitation of the provisions, the only successful way to terminate Karen’ s employment is by issuing her with reasonable notice.