Group Project 1

docx

School

Bemidji State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3420

Subject

Management

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by TLChristen

Report
Case 1 Group 2 Class: Labor and Employment Relations By: Marissa Cleven, Anne Cribb, Alison Earhart, Rebeckah Ehlinger, and Teaira Christen Due: May 24, 2021
Case 1 - Problem #6 By: Marissa Cleven, Anne Cribb, Alison Earhart, Rebeckah Ehlinger, and Teaira Christen Due: May 24, 2021 Class: BUAD 3420-90 Labor and Employment Relations Question: 6. A loss-prevention manager employed by a general store was terminated for pursuing a shoplifter outside of the store and throwing the shoplifter’s phone onto the roof of the store. The manager filed a complaint in superior court, claiming breach of contract and wrongful termination. He claimed that the store’s loss-prevention policies and procedures were part of his employment contract and that the store breached those contractual provisions when it terminated his employment without notice. The store moved for summary judgment. The company argued that its loss-prevention policy manual was not a binding contract and that, even if it were, the store’s actions did not violate company policy. The superior court agreed that the company’s policy manual was not a contract, and that the manager’s employment was, therefore, terminable at will. Accordingly, the court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the manager’s claims. The manager appealed. Do you think the company’s loss-prevention policy manual created a binding contract that would support the employee’s breach of contract claim? What facts, above, suggest that the policy couldn’t have covered the plaintiff ’s conduct? [See Becker v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.,335 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2014).] Answer: This case took place in the state of Alaska which is an employment-at-will state. Employment-at-will means both the employee and the employer are free to unilaterally terminate the relationship at any time and for any legally permissible reason, or for no reason at all. Even though Alaska is an employment-at-will state a company’s policy could alter this agreement if the policy creates a reasonable expectation that employees have been given certain rights. In reading through the Fred Meyer’s Loss Prevention manual, I do not believe the manual creates a contract, and honestly feel it gives grounds for the termination due to the actions taken by Fred Becker. In section 201 of Fred Meyer’s Loss
Case 1 - Problem #6 By: Marissa Cleven, Anne Cribb, Alison Earhart, Rebeckah Ehlinger, and Teaira Christen Due: May 24, 2021 Class: BUAD 3420-90 Labor and Employment Relations Prevention manual it states, “Every member of the Fred Meyer Loss Prevention department has duties and responsibilities that require absolute professionalism, maturity and tact.” By taking the customers phone and throwing it on the roof was in direct violation of acting with professionalism, maturity, and tact. This section also lists causes for immediate termination without prior warning. Reading these causes shows me that he was in violation of number 3 and 6. Number 3 states – use of excessive force (physical or verbal) when making an arrest or while conducting an interview. Number 6 states – continued pursuit of a suspect when they have either displayed a lethal weapon, entered a vehicle, or have left Fred Meyer property. I believe when Fred Becker threw the phone on the roof he used excessive force and at that point the customer was outside of the Fred Meyer and should not have been pursued any longer. Do to all of this I don’t believe the company breached any contract because there was no contract and I believe the loss prevention manual covered Fred Becker’s actions and was grounds for termination.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help