Human Resource Law - Scenario Two Research Paper

Human Resource Law - Scenario Two - search Paper ExampleSecondly, the dismissal process should be implemented as soon as possible, as delaying the process may lead to the development of resentment among the employees, which is not good for the business. It should also be say that judgement of dismissal 3 out of 8 employees will be discharging 37.5 percent of the bunkforce. Based on the edible of the US department of labor, discharging more than 33 percent of the employees should come after a 60 age on-paper notice to the affected employees. Therefore, this implies that the firm must meet this condition so as to avoid judicial action. From serving them with the notice, the firm will avoid suits for unemployment benefits (Ameri muckle Bar Association, 2006). The evaluation of the employees to be throwd should also read a review of the personnel memoranda and the policy manual, to ensure that any vague assurances or promises atomic number 18 eliminated. In the area of defini ng specific cause for discharge, disclaimers should be placed to reaffirm that even if the anticipate standards are not met, continued employment will be at will and termination throne be done without cause (American Bar Association, 2006). ... The employees to be discharged The first one is Diane. Her cause for discharge will be her minor attendance problems which she attributes to the sickness of children or some other personal matters. However, it is expected that she may file a lawsuit seeking to get unemployment benefits and compensation after dismissal. Following the suit, the firm should ease up all information on prior warnings, applicable statements and witness statements. Through presenting this information, it will be proved that she violated the policies on lateness and that according to the employment agreement, she signed against the offense especially in the case of replicate offenses (Barmby, Orme, & Treble, 1991). However, it should be noted that the grounds for firing her are not gross enough to warrant her refusal to unemployment benefits. What she would learn to prove, so as to win the case of discrimination, would include that she served the company for more than five years, and that no other offense could be traced from her record. From proving that her actions did not amount to gross misconduct, which injures the interests of the company substantially, she can win the case. The company can increase its chances of winning the case, by clefting her a 60-day notice before firing her or offer her warnings, which if she defies, they can now prove that she violated the warnings (American Bar Association, 2006). The second employee to be fired is Greg. The grounds for firing him include that his absence at work on Saturdays and Sundays has caused a burden to the firm and other employees, which constitutes marginal burden over the business of the employer. Following his absence on weekends, the firm has had to make reasonable changes to the work environment, especially