The Case of Jim Challenge’s Employment Termination

Ethics: The Case of Jim Challenge’s Employment Termination
Name
Institutional affiliation
Ethics: The Case of Jim Challenge’s Employment Termination
I will not let Jim Challenge, who has violated the company’s code of conduct for reporting late three consecutive times in a month, stay on the job. I provide the following reasons to justify my position:
1 There is a just cause for terminating or firing Jim. A just cause in any organization establishes guidelines or standards that define any future process of firing or terminations. Within the guidelines of a just cause, an organization or a company enters a contract with an employer and also sets risk for lawsuits should any termination be made not following defined company regulations.
2 None of the employees should be discriminated against or given unfair advantages in promotions, demotions, or firing. Applying the guidelines of termination should apply to all workers indiscriminately.
3 Under the social contract theory, Jim and the company have entered an agreement over the set business code of conduct and understand the outcomes of his actions.
4 However, even though Jim has been late for work three consecutive times, the company values his contributions towards the “Toy-Safe” project that is of a high priority to the company. Since his input in the project will define its successful completion, I might let Jim stay on the job. In this case, alternative disciplinary measures defined by the company will apply instead of firing to protect the interests of the company in completing the project.
There is a just cause to terminate Jim since he has already been late three times in a row and the Toronto Con’s business code of conduct dictates that such behaviors are not permitted from any employee, including Jim. The concept of good or just cause as the determinant of employee termination was established following the debates over collective bargaining and protecting workers from arbitrary or unfair termination (Hagedorn et al., 2016). This concept has been employed for decades and reflects the collective bargaining agreements that are made between employers and unions. In an event Jim challenges the termination of the union fails to agree with the decision, the services of an independent or neutral arbiter will be sought to convince them that the decision to terminate Jim’s employment was made out of a good or just cause. Jim will only be reinstated after the neutral arbiter finds that there is an insufficient cause in firing him. If this happens, then Jim will be reinstated and his pending wages and other benefits paid by the employer.
As none of the employees in the company should be discriminated against or given unfair advantages in demotions, firing, including promotions, I will proceed to fire Jim for his breach of the agreement with his employer. This will ensure that disciplinary actions are applied to all employees indiscriminately. Employers and attorneys are keen on matters ensuring that there is fairness in employment. One of the prime objectives within the department of human resource management (HRM) is to ensure healthy organizational growth and p...