In the course of day to day organizational operations, there may be instances where an employee feels that they have been unfairly or wrongfully dismissed from their job. This is especially the case where such an action arises due to an ethical issue rather than outright violation of organizational rules. This is because ethical issues are relative rather than absolute and judgment regarding how right or wrong it is varies from person to person (Bohlman & Dundas 56). This paper will seek to deal with one such scenario. An employee, Mr.
Uriah Heep was fired by the city of Boca Grande on allegations of working on weekends as an exotic dancer in a local night club, which his superior felt was engaging in activities that could discredit the City. Mr. Heed on his part has decided to sue his employer so as to get his job back. The main issue that arises in this case is that it needs to be looked at from a legal perspective, now that it is to be resolved in court. There is need for it to be proven that the dismissal from employment was really illegal, otherwise, the act would not be viewed from a legal perspective as being wrong.
Looked at from a general point of view, it would appear that his being fired was truly unfair. This is because what he was doing didn’t get in the way of his performance as an accountant over the years, unless his employer can prove otherwise which is unlikely because the cited reason has nothing to do with output but rather, image. At least the employer did not get to the point of noticing an effect on how he carried out his day to day routines. The validity of this argument would entirely depend on the ability to point out the illegality in the act. This is because in the legal sense, it cannot still be considered a wrongful deed.
There is need to connect the dismissal to specific grounds for unfair dismissal for instance race, gender, family obligation and sexual orientation among others, as provided for by law. The issue of image is not provided for by law unless it was in the employment contract. To improve the argument that indeed the dismissal was unfair, there are a number of points that emerge as important. First is the content of his contract with the employer. In this case, it is presumed that as long as a person regularly draws earnings due to his service to the employer, then a contract does exist whether it is formally put down on paper or oral.
Secondly, there also would be the question of whether or not the dismissal was carried out procedurally. The law, through the Unfair Dismissal Act (1977) requires the employer to through the issuance of a clear written procedure for any possible dismissal, make the employee know what to expect in case the need to dismiss him or her arises, and such clarification has to be given within four weeks after employment (Dickens & Smock 216). Uriah Heep may therefore need to consider whether the right procedure in this light was followed and if not, stands to have a stronger case than the employer.
However, one of the limiting reasons in the case would be the applicability of ‘at will’ employment in the state of Florida in general. For this reason, any employee can be fired on the strength of any reason, as long as such a move is deemed to have been legal. There is still hope for convincing the courts although the influence of this aspect is still usually great. Such a reason however has to have been provided for in the employment contract existing between the employer and employee (Bohlman & Dundas 111). In conclusion, the task of arguing his case may be a difficult one unless weak points are identified in the defense.
Although there is the challenge of proving the unfairness of the dismissal, the law to a great extent gives an opportunity for settlement of such a dispute. It still provides a guide on how such issues are to be handled. Deciding to sue may not be a bad idea after all. In the process, some government departments may be opted for or approached together with filing the lawsuit. Government departments may offer more information on the legal position of the employee and his rights and obligations as relates to the issue at hand (Fritz 94).
The only problem is however that such a case is likely to be complicated in nature. This is because in the process of such an assessment, there is the likelihood of there being varying legal concepts and laws upon which arguments may be presented by both parties.
Works Cited Bohlman, Herbert & Dundas Mary J. Legal Ethical International Environment Of Business. S W Duxbury: Pws Cole Onwo, 2002. Dickens, Obletree & Smock, Nash. Employee rights & employer obligations. Oakland: Matthew Bender Co. , 1992. Fritz, Warren. The employment contract. New York: Quorum Books, 1989.