Law Employer/Employee Relationship Essay

To follow whether an someone is an employee or unconditional twitchor downstairs the universal law, the consanguinity of the role player and the business essential(prenominal) be examined. All tell apart of lead and independence must(prenominal) be considered. In an employee-independent centreor determination, exclusively information that provides evidence of the degree of overtop and degree of independence must be considered.Independent Contractor or EmployeeUnder federal and state laws, an independent contractor must be just that, independent. He or she must provide a product or service without punching a magazine clock or being told how to do the telephone line. Independent contractors be exposit as persons engaged in occupations who contract to perform forge fit to their own methods, without being subject to control of the employer except for the result. Before an employer piece of ass determine how to treat payments it makes for services, the employer must first know the business kind that exists amid employer and the person performing the services.The person performing the services whitethorn be an independent contractor or an employee. Simply be elbow grease an employer refers to a driller as an independent contractor or he or she has concur to the arrangement in a written contract does non connote that the man-to-man is correctly classified as an independent contractor. Likewise, the fact that payments be final paymentd by accounts payable rather than the payroll department also does not mean that the person is an independent contractor. The nature of the relationship between the individual and the employer is the true determinant, and misclassification basin result in serious consequences for an organization.In bloody shames case, the scenario is vague and may need a little to a greater extent information in order to give an accurate assumption on whether or not bloody shame is a contractor or an employee. bloody shame was meshd for a special programmer interpret as a contractor and just as the project was nearing completion, a new project came into play. For this new project, bloody shame was required to use union materials and equipment while adhering to comp whatsoever schedules, which makes it seem as though she was being treated as an employee. bloody shame, at one point being an independent contractor, has now developed a relationship with the employer, the more likely there is an employer/employee relationship,and the tables at this point adjudge turned.Not only has Mary been rub downing for the comp all for a form of years, Mary is now working under the supervision of a supervisor, victimization company materials and equipment, not to mention that she now has to adhere to the company work schedules. Under common-law rules, anyone who performs services for you is your employee if you can control what willing be done and how it will be done (Internal Revenue Service, 2004).Employer / Employee RelationshipThe employer/employee relationship between Mary and Little love has changed over the course of time. With respect to Marys services, are they regularly available to the general public? They should be, and if Mary does not attempt to make the availability of his/her services known to the general public, her relationship with Little Lamb could be viewed as an employer-employee relationship. The primary complete here is who is running the ship. Does Little Lamb have the right to hire or fire, determine the wage or salary to be paid, and break up on the time, place, and manner in which the work is to be done? If so, then the employer-employee relationship exists. Also, even if Little Lamb does not directly control Marys activities, but has the right to do so, the notion of control still exists. Under the common-law (20) criteria test, an employer-employee relationship is present between Mary and Little Lamb Company.Employment at-willOne critical trade law issue affecting employee enchiridions and policy manuals is employment at will. Employment at will is traditional common law perspective that an employee may seek work and quit at any time, and likewise, that the employer may hire and fire at any time for any reason or no reason. Employees ever so have the right to quit their jobs, no matter how inconvenient their deflection may be for the employer. The employers right to fire or can the employee is not quite so simple and clear-cut.Some employees work under a written contract that specifies exactly the circumstances under which they can be terminated. If the agreement sets out a termination procedure, then it is a breach of contract to terminate the employee without following the procedure. Further, in states where at-will employment does exist, it is littered with statutoryexceptions. That means you cannot terminate thespians if the firing off infringes on a protected right or goes against public policy (Falcone, 2004).Many empl oyee terminations are base on a need to downsize, rather than on the employees individual poor performance (D. Shilling 1998). When employees are classified as simplification in force, it should be clarified that they are not at fault. lay off also affects a companys public profile, and its ex-employees can frame either well behaved-will ambassadors or the complete opposite.Marys release was levelheaded under the doctrine of employment at-will, providing she was an employee. Employment-at-will status does not provide employees with job security, and an employee can be fired on a moments notice for any legitimate reason, or for no reason at all. On the other hand, if Mary was a contractor, then Little Lamb would have broken the employment contract which would be misbranded.There are five key exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrineEmployment contracts If a contract exists, you must adhere to its terms and conditions, including notice requirement, least you breach the con tract. Where an employment contract exists for a fixed period of time (for example, three years) and is silent concerning chiliad for terminating the contract, many state courts have ruled that employers have an implied obligation to discharge only for just cause. Similarly, unionized employees are governed by the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement-they are not at-will employees.Statutory considerations Dismissals are illegal when based on age, sex, national origin, religion, union membership or any other factor protected by law. Potential problems arise any time you fire someone in a protected class.reality policy exceptions You cannot terminate an employee for such activities as filing a workers salary claim, whistle blowing, engaging in group activities that protest unsafe work conditions or refusing to commit an unlawful act on the employers behalf.Implied contract exceptions You may be bound by promises published in your employee handbook or oral promis es made at the hiring interview requiring just cause to terminate.In addition, you are prohibited from discharging long-term employees just before they are due to receive anticipated financial benefits (known as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing). Because of these limitations, you must attempt to protect the at-will employment status at all costs. And that requires regular reminders about the at-will relationship you have with employees, as well as progressive discipline (Falcone, 2004).ConclusionThe law disposal the relationship between an employee and an employer begins when an offer for employment is made by an employer to an employee. dig out law regulates the entire relationship between employer and employee and the initial hiring process, job duties, wages, promotions, benefits, employment reviews and termination of the employment relationship. It also includes litigation on the basis of unjust labor practices and discrimination. Sometimes there is a questi on of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.The courts will usually look to the relationship and determine whether the employer had the right to control how the employee performed the job. If that is unclear, the court may look to the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer. If the employee is substantially economically dependent upon the employer, then ultimately the stinker line would be that there is an employee-employer relationship.ReferencesCastagnera, J. (1988). Personnel Law Book. Greenvale, New York adorn PublishersFalcone, P. (2004). A legal Dichotomy. Retrieved family 24, 2006 from http//www.shrm.orgInternal Revenue Service. United States Department of Treasury. Retrieved September 25, 2006 from http//www.irs.govShilling, D. (1998). Human Resources and the Law. Printice hall. Paramus, New Jersey.