Implied Promises and Reliance

Implied Promises and Reliance

Pat Grey was hired and relocated to another city for a management position. Three months into the job Pats boss told him that it was not working out and that he would be terminated with 30 days severance pay. Pat was never warned of any performance issues nor was he told of any problems on the job.

The company’s employee handbook outlines a specific process for dealing with employees that do not perform at a satisfactory level; specifically, a Corrective Action Plan giving the employee a specified time to improve.

Pat was never given a corrective action plan which could pose problems for the company. Courts have recently placed restrictions on hiring and firing at will on the premise of reliance because employees rely upon policies and procedures outlined in a company manual for corrective action processes.

Finally, since Pat was offered a position in another city requiring relocation, the company could be viewed as promising to keep Pat as an employee as a result of his relocation.

Fishing off the company Pier

Sam a supervisor at Newcorp, grows close to and eventually starts dating an employee, Paula. The relationship blossoms then withers and ends, now the problems begin. Fishing off the company pier doesn’t always end bitterly. Take for example, Bill Gates who met his wife when she went to work for Microsoft. On the rare occasion that the relationship doesn’t flourish, the liability could be a sexual harassment law suit.

Sam should have allowed Paula to transfer regardless of her well being. Newcorp should have overridden Sam’s argument and transferred Paula.

Better Safe than Sorry

Paul, a technician for Newcorp refused to work on a machine for safety reasons. Another technician was injured previously while working on the same machine. Paul called OSHA to report the issue and threated legal action.

Newcorp should have immediately investigated the circumstances of Pauls claims. Newcorp could have hired an OSHA...