Employment Law - Case Study Example

Employment Law Workers and their families have rights especial upon the termination of their employment for the continuity of their health benefits, which are supposed to be acquired through health plan progress. However, employers are required to provide termination notices just in time and under consolidated budget-reconciling act known as CORA and health insurance portability and accountability Act (HIPAA). In the United states of America equal employment opportunity laws are meant to deny discrimination norm in employment environment based on the race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability status as well as national origin. Taking into consideration the situation of Kayte Clark, we realize that she has worked with Danskin Inc for more than 20 years with determination and hardworking perception. She is given a post of vice president despite of her disability and continue to deliver her anticipation at the highest level that oversees the company achieve profit maximization level at hand. The problem arise in her line of work when she accepted the clothing industry to initiate and urge to contact initiatives with her subordinate group on the basis of creating a union that will oversee the fate of the employee at large. The C.E.O. and Board of Directors is furious, and call her in and threaten to fire her for allowing union representatives in the company. She meticulously relates that the law says, that she cannot discourage or intimidate employees to keep any union from addressing employees, but they again rebuke her for her so called poor judgment. The board members states that, “they will get back to her shortly.” This case reflects a lot of unlawful instances in the way she ends up being treated. The fact that she is threatened is itself a bleach of law. Kayte Clark is herself a disabled employee but her situation has fully been considered. She is even given the chance to advance to a top position despite her condition of being a female worker and above all, being disabled. The major problem seems to come in when she decides to address the issue of other workers. She feels that these workers are hardly considered by the management. Her judgment is solely correct in contrast to what other individuals proclaim. The board is protecting the company’s position in the expense of the subordinate workers and any attempt to give these workers a chance to review their working conditions through a trade/labor union puts her into a difficult situation. Given that she has been working for the company for more than 20 years, there threats hardly mean anything to do with losing her job or even her immediate position. She is protected by Title VII in many ways. She can hardly be punished for relating with her subordinates, because she is disabled, because she is a woman. A major reason why she should not face any punishment is that she not caused any positive damage to the company. While the title protect employers who discriminate based on protecting certain traits, which could hinder occupational qualifications, subordinate workers have the right to join any labor unions that would fight for their rights. Kayte Clark has no right in preventing them from joining trade unions, but instead, she can help them in achieving their right to good working conditions among other benefits. Furthermore according to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, workers are entitled to join any union as long as the union has been availed under the constitution act amendment. In the United States of America, we have got the office of labor-management standards (OLMS) amended under labor-management reporting and Disclosure act formed in the year 1959 which covers unions and employees of this unions based on their postal services. The LMRDA Title VI bill of rights states that “ the authority to investigate a prohibition on a union fining, suspending, expelling, or otherwise disciplining members for exercising their rights under the LMRDA; and a prohibition on the use or threat of force or violence to interfere with a union member in the exercise of their rights” (Leslie 2-3). On the other hand, I concur with Kayte Clark for her engagement to fight back the rights of her co-workers. It is good and ethical to protect the employment rights of veterans learning from Kayte articulation and standing, one the aspects that the Board of directors is lacking to initiate as far as this case is of concern. A letter is issued to employees starting that starting that ““Ms. Clark did not have authority to allow union representatives on the premise; do not speak to them, they are trespassing”! Issuing such notices to the employees from board of directors was against the constitutional rights as far as the freedom of expression while at work is of concern. With time, Kayte was contacted and offered a onetime retirement package offer that she had to accept or lose it if she does not ascertain within two weeks time. Moreover, the offer that she was offer did not extend normal retirement benefits, insurance coverage, social security that she was supposed to be paid until she reaches at 59 years of age and an offer of buy-out funds. Kayte did not respond to the offer and after a span of two weeks the offer was terminated. Going by the United States of America labor law, her rights were violated and hence she is entitled to all the retirement benefits. Despite of her ability, Kayte was eligible to pensionable rights since the laws states that “EIRSA was enacted in 1974 to protect employees from improper conduct by employers, e.g. underfunding pensions, improperly withdrawing funds, and dismissal just before qualification for a retirement plan. Pension funds must be fully funded, and use of those funds for corporate debts, private individual extravagances; representative Cook when he challenged Representative Matheson in the second District, during a cash liquidity crisis borrowed from the pension fund to meet corporate obligations; funds were returned, but it cost him an election!”(Leslie 10-12). The law goes further stating, “Upon retirement, employee receives a specific amount, e.g. (Salary x so many years in service.). The rules for denial of the two retirement packages were “arbitrary and cupreous,” and the error in classifying them as “Independent contracts.” This is a concrete assurance that the board of directors are going against the rules set by EIRSA and they should expect severe punishment and a loss too should Kayte report the matters to the labor authority. The labor authority will continue pave out and accredit Kayte with funds from the company until she reaches the age of retirement even if she is out of work. Meanwhile, regarding her case and under EIRSA (Title VII) NLRB which states that “The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server” (Leslie 54-55). However, the aspect remains that any registered workers union have the mandate to educate employees based on new packages being availed and be able to create a sense of preferences from the employees. Employees of any organization usually sign a contract before being employed. The entire mandate within the contract has to adhere to the rules and regulations of labor department in the United States of America and should the employer goes astray, then accountability should be taken into considerate by the higher authority. Kayte on the other hand refused to take the package offer since she understands that she is protected by the laws and her rights will be availed even if she loses the prevailed package from her employer. Work Cited Leslie, Douglas. Labor Law in a Nutshell (In a Nutshell (West Publishing) [Paperback]. New York: West; 5 edition, 2008. Print. Read More