Management of Employee Conduct: Agency Law
Course Name and Code
Management of Employee Conduct: Agency Law
The concept of agency law focuses on the interactions between agents and principals, or situations in which one party has the ability to perform actions on behalf of someone else. Employer-employee, administrator-executor and guardian-ward relationships are a few that are frequently linked to agency law (Hilal & Bryan, 1). A union or a firm may act as both the principal and the agent in contracts that lead to the formation of agency-type relationships. The term “agency” refers to an agreement, either clearly indicated or insinuated, whereby one individual, referred to as the principal, assigns another individual referred to as the agent, with managing a company and carrying out operations on his behalf or in his name. The agent concurs to overseeing the company and provides a record of his activities.
In the said scenario, I am small business owner who decided not to employ staff so as to cut costs. I gave friends the job to act on my behalf at a fee; therefore this is an implied agency law scenario. It is implied because there is no contract of employment yet my friends go around telling people that they work for me. They also wear the business uniform and deal with clients and vendors. In the event that one friend orders too much from a vendor I will be held accountable. This is because my friend works for me and is compensated by me. I am therefore responsible for whatever actions he takes while performing work-related duties since I regulate his working environment and procedures. In this case the scope of employment which includes the workers compensation and all benefits the employee is likely to get is not applied (Bysal, 2). There is no employment contract to adhere to and every action by my friends is liable to me.
With an at-will contract, an employer is free to terminate a worker at any moment for any reason, aside from those that are illegal, or with no justification at all. Similarly, there are no negative legal repercussions if a worker quits their employment at any moment for any purpose or for no purpose at all. At-will hiring also indicates that staff may modify the conditions of the employment agreement at any time with no warning and no repercussions (Gertz, 3). A boss might change pay, stop providing incentives, or cut paid time off, for instance. In its purest form, the U.S. at-will law exposes workers to discretionary and unexpected termination, a constrained or on-call work plan based on the demands of the boss, and sudden reductions in salary and incentives.
In most cases an employer is allowed to fire an employee for reasons such as the employee took much time off, the employee is not performing well and the employer does not like the employee (Pollack, 4). Other reasons an employer can fire an employee include the employer is having a bad day, the employer thinks the employee talks too much or the employer does not get along with the employee. However, the employer is not supposed to fire an employee for reasons such as reporting sexual harassment, reporting wrong activities for example fraud, taking medical leave, participating in union work, complaining about OSHA violations and filing a claim for unpaid wages (Pollack, 4). An employer is also not allowed to fire an employee because he or she discriminates on their gender, age, religion, race or medical condition.
Discussion: Paul Parsons V. Priester Aviation, LLC.
This case is a direct example of an at-will employment termination. The commercial aircraft firm Priester Aviation employed Paul Parsons as a pilot. In June 2021, Priester assigned Parsons to travel to Thailand. Parsons informed a Priester employee that he thought this journey would be against the rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (5). The next day, before the planned trip, Priester fired Parsons. Parsons claims that Priester’s decision to fire him violated their contract of employment, was an unfair form of retaliation for Parsons’ refusal to engage in criminal activity, and was motivated by unfair dismissal due to age. Parson at the time was 65 years old. Priester claimed to Parsons that the company fired him for boarding an illegal person without the owner’s consent (5). According to Parsons, this individual was on board to assist with cleaning the aircraft, which is the duty of the pilot. Parsons contends that this justification is a ruse because there is no requirement in any Priester policy or statement in its manuals for a pilot to get permission before boarding somebody. Parsons sued Priester for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and age discrimination (5). Priester made a motion to dismiss the charges of contract breach and unfair dismissal arguing that Parsons was not fired for refusing to conduct a crime and that he was also an at-will employee.
The court ruled in response to the breach of contract allegation, Priester Aviation, LLC’s request to dismiss was granted. However, the wrongful termination claim was denied (5). I agree with the court’s ruling because Parsons should not have been fired. The company should have given him a warning for allowing the person to board without their consent. If Parsons would not have identified the criminal act, the company would probably have not had an issue with the third party on board. It was evident that the company was used to committing the offence and they did not want a whistleblower on their team so they fired Parsons.
Hilal, Susan and Bryan, Litsey. 2020. Reducing police turnover: Recommendations for the law enforcement agency. P 73-83. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461355719882443Baysal, Ulas. 2018. The Scope of Employment Security Regulations for Workplaces Under Turkish Labor Law. P 245-249. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/615075Gertz, Sally. 2017. At-will employment: Origins, applications, exceptions, and expansions in public service. P 47-74. Retrieved from http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/PUBLIC%20POLICY%20(Public%20Administration%20and%20public%20policy%20131)%20American%20public%20service%20radical%20refor.pdf#page=80Pollack, Daniel. 2017. Wrongful Termination of Public Human Services Employees. Retrieved from https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/4737/art%20APHSA%20Wrongful%20termination%20of%20public%20human%20service%20employees.pdf?sequence=1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 2022. PAUL G. PARSONS, Plaintiffs, vs. PRIESTER AVIATION, LLC, Defendants. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-00105/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-00105-0.pdf