The Case of ABC Enterprise and Cowboy Staffing
In the given case study, ABC Enterprises (“ABC”) preserves the status of the employer. Having a lot of operations to manage, ABC decided to outsource the duties concerned by hiring new staff to Cowboy Staffing (“Cowboy”) which has been assigned the job of recruiting medical personnel on behalf of ABC Enterprises. This is because the entire process of getting new staff has to be a meticulously done job, considering the employment pool they are drawn from. It demands that the recruits are thoroughly vetted before they are employed. This is because for ABC, offering the best health care services is paramount in satisfying their clients. For this contract, Cowboy signed an agreement and attested to this requirement. All that happened under the old management.
Before the New Management stepped in, ABC should have been informed and asked if it wished to continue receiving the services it had outsourced. Let us assume ABC then agrees to continue with the partnership agreement, the fact that Cowboy no longer regards the agreement makes it liable for any eventualities that could arise from neglecting the fact that they are supposed to conduct extensive background checks on any prospective employees. ABC is also jointly accountable for any outcomes and this is because ABC has permitted Cowboy to publicize the information that all employees are thoroughly vetted. ABC gains the confidence of its clients and therefore for any negative results, the clients will be justified in suing ABC Enterprises who will, in turn, ensure that Cowboy Staffing bears the brunt of the accusations. Because ABC Enterprise would be registered under a government agency responsible for Health, they would also be rightfully charged with putting a patient’s life at risk as well as for not meeting any other obligations as is required of them by the state.
Any of the employees who have been recruited by Cowboy on behalf of ABC cannot be easily sacked on the grounds of any information later being unearthed in the course of their employment. This is because Cowboy has already attested to the fact that it conducts meticulous background checks before it hires anyone. The employment contract they will sign with ABC will therefore protect them from any unlawful sacking even if it is true that they have a criminal background. ABC can only protect itself in this case by assuming that if by any chance some discriminating information comes up about any employee, the employee will face immediate dismissal and be liable for any actions that would be as a result of this. This can be included as a clause in the employment contract. An employee like Billy Bad Boy would therefore be punished for his crimes and not go scot-free. Billy Bad Boy already has a case to answer because he illegally accessed a patient’s information and used it for other purposes other than what it was intended for. He breached patient confidentiality and should suffer the repercussions especially because it resulted in the theft and causing bodily harm to the patient.
Millicent Primrose, the patient who was attacked by Billy Bad Boy, who at that time was serving as an orderly at ABC, through no fault of hers apart from being a patient at ABC was exposed to harm. She can also rightfully sue ABC and Cowboy for exposing her to theft and assault. The main offender here remains Billy Bad Boy who would be accused of theft and causing bodily harm to a patient as well as the illegal use of information that was deemed private and not to be used for any other function other than what it was intended for. The fact that he has a criminal record compounds the accusations that will be leveled against him.
In defense, ABC may argue that it did outsource the staffing matters to Cowboy which swore and stood by the fact that they offered very impeccable screening services, rivaled by no other in the industry and they did sign a contract that Cowboy would thoroughly screen any potential employees of ABC. Cowboy would therefore be responsible for whatever had befallen Millicent Primrose. Cowboy on the other hand may choose to use Billy Bad Boy as the scapegoat for this case since he already has a criminal record and greatly dwells upon this in the hope that their negligence in the whole matter will be ignored or looked upon as a small issue.
How Bob Bailey was recruited as the manager of the clinic’s payday loan operation is wanting. He did not even receive any training from ABC even though the job description did not even match his academic qualifications. ABC doesn’t seem to be concerned with the fact that such operations that are very delicate and involve money and personnel are run by a single person who can hire and fire anyone at will, which all is contrary to the regulations prescribed by the employment act. Bailey on the other hand conducts some activities without the authorization of ABC, his employer, or the people he seeks to employ. He has no legal grounds for carrying out the criminal and credit history background checks on employees, information which he does not disclose to ABC or the employees.
The fact that the recruiting process is left to him alone and doesn’t receive the opinion of another person leaves the entire process prejudicial and the employees very vulnerable. Employees are protected from this and therefore can contest any discriminatory treatment they may receive or be privy to. Any employee who finds out and can prove that the criminal and credit checks were conducted can also rightfully sue Bailey for unlawful acquisition of personal information. Bailey is required by law to issue the employee with a notice describing his intention to request credit information about him or her from the concerned companies. Unless this consent is given, Bailey has no legal grounds to access them. If a possible employee denies his request, he is justified in not recruiting them or considering their application. The employment act however shields Bailey to some extent because it gives him a right to check an employee’s criminal record, especially where the profession provides an opportunity for crime, which is true in this case (Carlson 2009).
Bob Bailey seems to always have ulterior motives during the hiring process. Some of the issues he seeks to have information about having no bearing whatsoever on the hiring process. He is too intrusive of the employees’ details. This is divergent from what the law allows. The employment law may not be very clear in preventing an employer from asking potential employees such questions, but in a court of law, they may be used as evidence in a case (Carlson 2009). He also seems to have a bias for those who have not had any college education even when this is not a prerequisite for the job he is seeking to recruit a person. Those of Swedish descent or who happen to be blonde suffer the same fate. But then again, he is the only person on the interviewing panel and so an employee is at his mercies which is prejudicial. Deciding on who to recruit based on some tests was also a preferred way of analyzing employees, but making one-sided conclusions centered on these facts was a very unjust method of recruiting employees.
The law forbids the use of lie detectors by private employers (Carlson, 2009). Personality tests may also victimize those who do not use English as their main language. Bailey can be sued by employees and ABC basing on all these issues. He may however argue that it is the only way he can be sure of recruiting the right fit for whichever position he is seeking to employ. He is also however protected by the fact that the law views such affiliated entities like Bailey as the same as their employer (Carlson, 2009). In a court of law, Bailey would be a task to prove that he did not in any way discriminate against any employees and that he was justified because it was a job-related decision, but he must show the association between the position that the potential employee was vying for and the qualifications that it needed.
The church is always viewed as a non-profit making institution. The fact that the church receives money from the clinic but chooses not to at least give the volunteers some form of allowance is not appropriate. In its defense, it may argue that the volunteers come to the clinic to offer services fully knowing and agreeing to the terms of reference which includes not receiving any form of payment. Any job description must always include working hours. In this case, they are not specified or definite which makes the entire arrangement very inconsiderate of the welfare of the volunteers.
The church also engages the services of volunteers from the ages of eight to eighty. This is very illegal because the employment act clearly states that it is unlawful to employ children. Children under the age of fourteen can only be employed by their parents unless the job is related to agriculture, then maybe they can be delegated some tasks. Those between the ages of fourteen to fifteen can only work if the Department of Labour (DOL) restricts both the stipulated time and type of work to be done. Children in the 16-17 age brackets can be employed unless otherwise defined by DOL. The volunteers can sue the church on all mentioned grounds. The church will only be able to use one angle of defense and this is basing on the fact that the work done at the clinic was purely voluntary so no one was obligated to join the operation. The element of it being voluntary therefore meant it would be unpaid work and that the volunteers would be offering their services free of charge.
The Case of AA Aviation Parts (“AAA”) and John Jones, Joe Schmidt, Penny Parsons (JSP Aviation)
AAA Aviation Parts has several claims against John Jones, Joe Schmidt, and Penny Parsons. First is that all three of them resigned without any prior notice and stopped working for AAA. Jones severed the end of his agreement with AAA when he resigned before giving a notice of one year as he had said he would. AAA is therefore entitled to $100,000 from Jones. All of the three employees signed a broad form of nondisclosure agreement so AAA can sue them for breach of contract because they illegally took possession of company information, which in the hands of a competitor would be damaging. Jones also went against his pact with AAA when he together with Schmidt and Parsons opened a rival aviation company, JSP Aviation because he signed a covenant not to compete which forbid him from working for any other company in the airline industry for up to two years after the termination of his employment contract with AAA. In trying to dent the image AAA had with its customers, JSP Aviation could rightly be sued by AAA. Another claim AAA has against JSP is that Jones is aware of a new product rollout and may use it to launch their new company and get market recognition. If he does, AAA will rightfully sue him. Schmidt too has received a lot of training at the expense of AAA, through which he was able to develop a patented product. So without the input of AAA in terms of financing and knowledge, Schmidt probably wouldn’t be in the position he is in. AAA can justly refuse to give him the 20% royalty he is claiming from all funds that are raised from the product.
On all counts, Jones, Schmidt, and Parsons have no legal defenses to the claims being made by AAA because before the falling-out, they had signed an agreement that bound them and directed whatever decisions they would make thereafter. The only avenue which in a way could save Schmidt and Parsons and probably leave them unscathed is that they could legally terminate their employment because they did not sign an employment agreement and so were free to resign at any time they saw fit. Jones, Schmidt, and Parsons do not have any counterclaims to put up apart from the fact that they were being subjected to a drug test policy that they did not consent, especially with the derogatory manner in which it was conducted. It also exempted the head of the company from the test with no grounds for the decision. The law clearly states that carrying out such tests without the approval of an individual will be invading on their privacy and the employer must seek means of doing it rationally. The law safeguards employees against any problems that may arise from taking the drug test that could range from physical injuries to psychological issues such as suffering a traumatic experience (Carlson 2009). AAA is still enraged with how the trio walked out and as such has also refused to pay Jones $50,000 and Schmidt and Parsons $25,000 each.
The Case of Big and Mean Company (“BM”)
The Big and Mean Company (BM) having three branches with about 3,000 employees should have well-defined employment practices that are similar across all the three branches and alike about the different levels of employees in the company. By law, all employees are subject to receiving benefits. Only the amount may differ depending on company policies. It is unlawful to pay some workers benefits and deny others the same yet they are all covered under the same employment act. These benefits unlike the practices at BM should be well calculated and written down such that it is clear how much each group of employees receives every time they receive their pay. This practice should also be consistent and applies to how BM pays out bonuses to only supervisors and yet the guidelines are not well defined. BM also violates the law when it exploits its employees in terms of not paying them for the extra hours that they work. They are forced to occasionally come in much earlier and leave way after the time that is stipulated in their employment agreements. The company goes ahead to ensure they do clock in during these occasions and so much as they work for more than forty hours a week, they are only paid for 40 hours. Deducting any amount of money from the employees without their knowledge and consent is illegal yet BM subtracts the cost of consumables from each of the hourly workers.
The workers who receive a “piece rate” are exploited because their hours are not clocked in and neither does BM introduce a method of tracking the time they spend working since they do it from home and not within the company premises. Even if they work for more than 40 hours a week, they still receive less than the minimum wage. Employees are at liberty to voice their opinions, grievances, and requests to their employers without fear of being harassed or penalized by their employers. BM was wrong to dismiss ten employees for complaining and another 10 for probing management on the status of their retirement fund. The fact that it has at will employees, however, means that it can defend itself against any accusations leveled at it over such abrupt dismissals because it reserves the right to fire them at any time it deems fit just like they can decide to leave at any time without prior notice. As regards the pension plan, BM cannot be both the benefactor and the manager. The fact that it is the benefactor means it should outsource the services of a subsidiary company to manage the funds and how they are dispersed. This would be the same company that would respond to any queries that the employees may have regarding their pension plan. On all the mentioned issues, BM is responsible for the welfare of its employees, and as such it must make sure that they are comfortable and all their grievances are addressed amicably because a contented employee will also reflect positively on the employer in terms of delivering their duties.
The Case of Lakewood Bank
The loss of funds from the vault in a bank is a very grievous matter that requires immediate and stern action. This is because the longer the bank takes in following up the matter; the harder it becomes to trace the funds. Lakewood Bank was justified in taking instant measures, especially to the people who were directly concerned with the operations of the vault and this happened to be Josh Hamilton and Michael Young.
The company was however not right to suspend the two without pay in the course of the investigation. It would have been better to relieve them of their duties at the bank, but not cut their pay because much as they were the main suspects, they had neither been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt nor was there evidence to show that they were behind the theft. The fact that they refuted the accusations being leveled against them gives them grounds to sue the bank for wrongful suspension. The offices of Hamilton and Young are the property of the bank and it preserves the right to search them as was in this scenario. It however overstepped its boundaries by being very intrusive especially as far as their private life was concerned.
This intrusion of their privacy unearthed humiliating facts about the two; which had no bearing whatsoever on their terms of employment. Every employee is allowed to have an acceptable amount of discretion, but this search gives Hamilton and Young grounds to claim that this right was denied. The entire situation results in a very awkward working environment because everyone looks at them differently with less respect, especially the detection of the hateful mail about their supervisors. It would result in a lot of friction in how they relate. The fact that this intrusion revealed the personal monetary difficulties Young was experiencing would make him more of a suspect. Hamilton and Young could sue them on all the aforementioned grounds but would be a task to a state where this was stipulated in the bank’s policies since Lakewood lacks documented guidelines and procedures. The search into the personal effects of the employees will be argued on the scope at which it was carried out and whether it was corresponding to the need (Carlson 2009).
Anna Nicole, who has also presented a case purportedly accusing her superior David Murphy of sexual harassment, and persistently pestering her as the only way through which she can get a pay rise or else he would demote her, has snubbed the bank’s request to take a test using a lie detector. However, Hamilton and Young were not given a choice in this very matter and were given an ultimatum of losing their jobs. This was a discrepancy in the bank’s policies as far as taking the polygraph assessment was concerned. But in the eyes of the law, as long as it is being used for investigative purposes, the employer is allowed to employ their use.
Works Cited
Carlson, Richard. Employment law, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Aspen Publishers, 2009.