The paper “ Human Resource Development in Dataforce Company” is a convincing example of a case study on human resources. Many reasons may necessitate the dismissal of an employee. some of the reasons may be circumstantial while others may be caused by an employee's conduct. One circumstantial reason for an employee’ s dismissal may be redundancy that may be caused by an improvement in technology hence rendering an employee’ s services redundant. Downsizing of businesses is also another reason that may lead to organizations laying off some workers. Downsizing in most cases is supposed to enable the company to stay competitive and profitable.
Sometimes companies become automated and hence some workers get replaced. This calls for the company to dismiss the replaced employees. Some of the reasons behind lying off workers may be caused by the workers themselves. At times, a worker may not be doing his/her job as expected thus lowering productivity. Such a worker may be dismissed if warnings do not bear fruits. Another that would necessitate an employee’ s dismissal is gross misconduct within the organization. Employees may also be dismissed for misconduct that occurs outside the organization’ s premises.
In this case, the question that would arise is whether the bad actors had a negative impact on the organization's image regardless of whether it occurred within or without the workplace. Although the management may be justified in firing a worker, care must be taken the employer must behave in a professional and unbiased manner. All legalities concerning employee’ s dismissal must be followed. This is because an employee fired unfairly can have grounds to sue. If successful in suing the company, this can have adverse effects on the company’ s image. In the Dataforce contract case, it is evident that Brian has been an employee of Dataforce Company since 1996 despite there being no written contract.
This is because he has served the company for a long time and hence the rules that apply to workers with written contracts will also apply to him. This can be deduced from the case of the Cecil v. Ontario gymnasium. Here, the court held that employers cannot avoid their obligations to pay reasonable notice by having an employee serve many short unsigned contracts.
The fact that Brian has served as a Dataforce company’ s staff since 1996 implies that there has been an employment contract between Brian and the company. In fact, the company has gone on to promote Brian to an executive director’ s post. Therefore the company can not pretend that there does not exist an employment contract between it and Brian. This being the case, the company must treat Brian as if there existed a written contract. He must be given reasonable notice for the termination of his employment contract.
He must also be given full reasons for termination of his employment and all the benefits entitled to him paid (Lazear and Rosen 128-129). It is obvious that Brian is not going to accept misconduct as the reason for his contract being brought to an end. This is because the company itself accepts that there has been no serious misconduct by him. They have also rated his performances being acceptable. The only option available for Sally Chen is to prove that Brian’ s act in the social event was of gross misconduct and that it had a negative effect on the company’ s image.
The fact that he behaved inappropriately in a public place where the company’ s customers could have been present could have made think the customers to reconsider their relationship with the company. This is especially so because Brian is a senior employee of the company who is supposed to portray the company’ s image wherever he is. In Ann v. Whitney Travel Company, Ann who was a well known senior employee of the company had gone out on a drinking spree she had got over drank to the fact that she could no longer control herself.
She started abusing everyone in the pub including her boyfriend who was also an employee of the company. As a result, a fight broke out and Ann was badly hurt in the fight. She could not go for work for the next month since she was hospitalized. During her hospitalization, the management learned the cause of the fight and the impact this could have had on the company. During a board of directors meeting, it was decided that her employment contract be terminated.
Consequently, Ann sued the company accusing it of unfair dismissal arguing that the incident occurred outside of work. In its defense, the company argued that Ann being a senior employee was supposed to behave well at all times as she is the image of the company. Furthermore, many people in the locality knew her and this was likely to damage their attitude towards the company. In dismissing her case, the court argued that it does not matter where the conduct occurs but its effects or potential impact on the employers business, whether because the company may be damaged in a way; because the act is not compatible with proper performance of the workers duties; because it impacts upon the employers duty upon other workers, Or for other reasons that undermine trust and confidence.
Hence, the company’ s decision to fire Ann was upheld. Similarly, the Dataforce Company will be able to argue its case basing its argument on the fact that Brian’ s misconduct even though outside the company had a negative impact on the company and hence have him fired (Redman 99).