“Atwill” doctrine is extensively used in certain employment contracts.Hiring employees “at will” means employers have unique degree offreedom of discharging or firing employee at his own discretion. Theydo the action without prior informing or alerting the employees abouttheir intentions and they are not required by law to validate theaction. Likewise, in the jurisdiction of the doctrine, employee boresthe freedom to quite, cease to work or strike without noticing theiremployers (Pozgar,2012).
Asa human resource manager at regional, I would justify for the policyof employment “at will” in much depth. Termination of thehospital employee (Mr. Con Fused), is justifiable as the doctrinesay: at will. The hospital attorney has the mandate to terminate theemployment contract at will with reason or without reason. Citedfrom:Alabamamills, Inc. v. Smith, 23(1939)7 Ala. 296, 186 so. 699 (1939),evenif the decision is brutal, arbitrary, inconsistency and peremptory,there should be no grounds for any question about the judgment. Furthermore, the employment contract was explicitly stated and thetwo parties agreed before they came into a covenant. Therefore, theyare no any reason for the employee to appeal for the termination ofthe employment as he was aware of the term and condition of thecontract. The policy is a necessity, since no one is tied andrestricted to any mentioned contract if he or she feels otherwise.Any side of the party is free to make absolute decision and executeit without any constraints.
Asa member of public advocacy, the hospital’s news contains a lot offlaws. It is not applicable to terminate the contract of Mr. ConFused for no reason. Nevertheless, I found it crazy to follow thearticulation of words without rethinking the consequences: at will.They should have stated the reason for termination of the employmentcontracts since it could be grounded by discrimination of race,color, gender, religion or tribe. Likewise, the Hospital Attorney’sintention for the termination of the contract could due to the reasonto contravene the public policy of the country. Cited from:the Michigan court of appeals, in Sventko v. Kroger co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d, 153 (1976).
Thedischarge of an employee due to abiding to the law and regulation ofthe public, employer should have a clear explanation for the same.This is a normative behavior in terms of the employee and should notbe evacuated in any way in terms of public policy grounds.
Inconclusion, due to ideas posted by my fellow students, for instance,(Joshua), I found it applicable and healthy for “at will” clauseto be in the medical industry. The argument behind it, someemployees, may be incompetence having in mind they are dealing withhuman’s life. Rescuing life is vital and requires accuracy andtiming (Pozgar, 2012). The situation could be worse if a certainemployee does not be in a position to comply with that. Hence,employer has a right to replace him or her immediately withoutrestrictions.
Asfor Roseline, it is not applicable for Mr. Con Fused working for morethan 5 years, fails to follow simple roles. In contrary, it reflectssome hidden agenda of the employer. This could be as a result ofwickedness activities of the employer which goes contrary with publicpolicy (Connell & Castro, 2009). This curtail the implication of“at will” doctrine to be in medical industry as it can be used asemployer’s weapon against flawed. In my opinion, I support themotion raised by Roseline that medical industry should not abide to“at will” doctrine.
Connell,D., & Castro, M. (2009). The "Independent Investigation"Defense to Individual Termination Decisions. EmployeeRelations Law Journal,35(3), 20-34.
Pozgar,G. D. (2012). Legalaspects of health care administration.Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pozgar,George D. (2012). Legalaspects of health care administration.11th ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning, Press.