Jane has recently been hired as a Payroll Manager for R&S Electronic Service Company, a small business that employs 75 people and is owned by Brad. After a few months of relatively uneventful work, she discovers activities involving Greg, a Service Technician and brother to the General Manager, receiving preferential treatment that she feels is in violation of general business standards and practices. She has been instructed by her General Manager, Eddie, to ignore these potential violations or it will cost her the job. Jane is still in a probationary status with the company and is not sure what the correct course of action should be. The stakeholders in this particular situation are Jane, Brad, Eddie, Greg, the other R&S technicians and employees as well as R&S customers. The potential impact of Jane’s decision could mean loss of jobs, lost revenue, negative brand image, performance issues, decrease in trust with management, negative work environment, poor productivity, and apathy. The purpose of this paper is to examine both the legal and ethical implications of what Jane has witnessed and the recommendation for the corporation on a course of action based on what we have learned to this point.
When examining the aspects of the At Will Doctrine, it is understood that both employees and employers have the right to terminate the working relationship at any time without cause. However, it is also understood that there are some exceptions to this doctrine; one being that of a “public policy exception”. Reynolds (2003) tells us “The open-ended nature of public policy exceptions is typified by the California court that in Peterinan v. Local 396 (1959) declared that anything that contravenes ‘good morals or any established interests of society’ constitutes action against public policy” (p.60). This would indicate that the actions by Greg and Eddie are in violation of this exception and would constitute necessary actions being taken on the part of Jane without...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document