The days when the employees and employers were left to make their general arrangements and agreements regarding the payments, conditions of work and many more factors have fast gone by. There was a believe by the employees that their employers would be able to treated them fairly and on the other hand, the employers knew that failure to treat their employees well would lead to the employees leaving to go and work in other places (Rhea & Samson, 2004). This local arrangement was able to work well fro a very long time till the period of industrial revolution when the employees started loosing faith in their employers. During this period, the working conditions became very harsh and the masters who were overseeing the work would fire any worker who was late, disorderly or tried in anyway to incite the workers. This age saw children hired and forced to work for long hours in very bad working conditions (Twomey, 2009).
However, the early twentieth century was seen by changes, labor laws were set up by the government that would rectify the problems in the work places. These laws were to protect both the employers and the employees. The laws formulated established the minimum wages, rights f union formations and the working conditions were defined. It is therefore true to say that because of the sufferings and pain underwent by the thousands of workers in the past, employees currently enjoy a number of benefits that guarantee them to a number of rights
In More Beer Incorporation's case, it is very essential to know the base of their argument when they want to carry out their dismissal duties, this is essential so as not to preach any labor law. According to the equal employment opportunity (EEO), there are a number of laws that prohibit discrimination in relation to employment and job opportunities (Rhea & Samson, 2004). Title VII prohibits the discrimination of employment in relation to color, sex, race and the nation of origin. In the case of jenny smith, dismissing her would lead to a number of questions being raised by the civil rights movements. For instance, she is originally from south America, therefore, if dismissed, she can argue from the point of discrimination. It is a crime to discriminate an individual because of his place of birth, culture, ancestry and linguistic traits that tend to associate the person with a specific group.
Title VII illegalizes any idea that tends warrant employees to speak English at the work place (Twomey, 2009). It is only a requirement if the employer is able to proof that the use of English at the work place is necessary for the conduct of the business. It is clear from the case study that apart from the few days that Jenny has missed from her work due to her pregnancy, she is hard working. In addition to this, she is capable of speaking three languages apart from English very fluently. This is an asset to the firm especially on the marketing sector. At the same time, Jenny smith realizes how the pregnancy has led to her being absent from work and she regrets it. She has expressed this concern and has promised to improve on her attendance in the future immediately she goes through the morning sickness period.
The case of Mike Williams can be a sensitive one. To begin with, the employee is devoted and has a greater potential to be of more productive to the firm. The person also has no any negative record with the company, has no any reported cases of absenteeism and thus the firm may have no ground to dismiss him. The only negative attribute associated with Mike Williams is related to his ethnic background where first language interference impairs his speech hence making it hard for effective communication with colleagues. As noted by Rubenstein and Frost (2010), dismissing an employee on the basis of his ethnic or racial bases is outlawed in the constitution and thus it may prove hard to dismiss this person.
To begin with, any dismissal that may be granted to Mike Williams can attract heavy costs for litigation as he has been shown to be of above average performance. Since he has no negative record with the organization, Mike Williams may sue for unfair dismissal and cite his race and the perceived lack of cooperation from the other workers as the basis that the firm has used to lay him off. This therefore would result to costly court battles and the company shall have any fact to use in defense to support the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams. In his defense, Mr. Williams can cite the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits employers, public and private alike from discriminating employees based on their race. When this happens therefore the company may have to defray huge unfair dismissal charges to as there is no base as to why he should be dismissed.
It is therefore advisable that Mr. Williams be maintained and get absorbed in other functioning areas of the organization. Besides he has proved to be an effective employee of above average production and thus the company stands to benefit greatly with him as one of the employees. Maintaining him also is a good way of showing that the company has respect for diversity. The final decision from the HR group therefore is that there are no reasons that can satisfy a justifiable dismissal to Mr. Williams and thus the only feasible option is to retain him and redeploy him to other sectors of the company.
Philip Price who is of average performance also presents various technicalities for dismissal. However the person seems to have an inherent problem based on his lateness problem which provides a base that can be used for dismissal. The company can choose to dismiss him on the basis that he has contravened the basic rules of the company concerning absenteeism from work. However any dismissal to this worker can also attract litigation especially as he can present a case that he was wrongfully dismissed simply because of his sexual orientation. According to Rubenstein and Frost (2010), a possible passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would provide grounds for litigation to Mr. Phil and thus can make the company to engage in a legal tussle that can be detrimental both financially and as far as repute factors are concerned.
However, the firm has no choice but to lay off Mr. Phil off his duties. Although it is well known that he is of great ability due to his vast experience, it is important to note that his lack of high caliber academic credentials can be used against him in case of any case. Be sides, the fact that the legal channels that he can sue for unfair target due to sexual orientation are yet to be entrenched in the federal laws provides reprieve that there are no possibilities that he can successfully sue for wrongful dismissal. It should however be noted that any dismissal should be based on Mr. Phillips work ethics and not sexual orientation. For instance the persistent absenteeism problem should be used as the main reason to justify the dismissal as opposed to having a dismissal ground based on sexual orientation. This would greatly save the company from attracting the wrath of gay and other rights based activists who may use such a dismissal against the company.
The case for Sally is also weighty. To begin with, Sally has been a trusted employee and has had nothing wrong as far as her conduct as an employee is concerned. Besides this, she has successfully worked in other areas that other than the failed marketing system. She therefore possesses excellent knowledge for the company and this complicates her case. Having worked for a long period in the company, attempts to dismiss Sally may attract legal litigations and she can easily base her case on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 where she can argue that she was picked due to her advancing age. The social factors surrounding her family too provides more grounds that complicate her case as dismissing her would make her family suffer.
However, the company has no choice but to lay her off. The lay off decision should be based on her absenteeism from wok. By citing her persistent absenteeism, the company shall have managed to escape any form of court battles for unfair dismissal. The company however can recognize her long services by awarding her a sendoff package that would help her financially before she gets another employment, hence reducing the financial burden that this decision may cause her.
The case involving Margret Jones is a very sensitive one. Miss Jones is very dynamic in her work and in addition she is said to be very smart and talented. She is very ambitious and this can be proven by how hard she works in order to rise up the ladder. However, she does not regard team work. Margret Jones is involved in the local chapter of civil rights group; this can be seen in the number of cases where she has represented employees whom she considered were not receiving the treatment they deserved. Dismissing Margret from work can lead to her filing a court suite claiming to have been dismissed due to her involvement in the civil rights actions.
According to the labor laws, national labor Act that was enacted in 1935 as apportion of the New Deal legislation gave the workers the right to form and join unions, similarly, the employees were empowered with the power to engage themselves in collective bargaining. However, the firm stands a better chance if it approaches these claims by presenting arguments that are based on Margret's lack of involvement in team playing and her constantly being absent from work. The back bone of any firm is laid on its workers. Workers who combine forces together to achieve organizational set goals, the achievement commands for workers to constantly work as a team which Margret was not good in. similarly Margret has been a constant absenter, she has missed work for two months in the last one year which is not good for the performance of the entity. Her disregard for other employees and her selfish motives can also lead to her dismissal (Twomey, 2009).
From the illustration that has been pointed out in these case studies, there is a clear indication of the origin of the labor laws. It has been identified that the labor laws govern the relationship that exists between he employer and the employees. More significantly, the laws were enacted to protect the employees from employers who were after exploiting them. Twomey (2009) argues that despite this, there are still a number of employers who disobey the set rules. Some of the common laws that are breached by employers are discrimination. The discrimination may be based on race, color, gender, religion and disability. However, the labor laws are there to keep an eye and make sure that these vices do not become rampant in the society.