{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_Chapter8_Engineers_in_Organizations_Compatibility_Mode_

Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_Chapter8_Engineers_in_Organizations_Compatibility_Mode_

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 8 Engineers in Organizations
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Study No 1 : Conflict between professional employees and managers Paul Lorenz was a mechanical engineer at Martin Marietta. Paul was laid off on July 25, 1975 because he failled to be part of in acts of deception and misrepresentation concerning quality of materials used by Martin Marietta in designing equipments for NASA. He was informed he should: “Start playing ball with management”
Background image of page 2
Case Study No 1 : Conflict between professional employees and managers } Lorenz filed a tort claim against Martin Marietta for wrongful discharge. } Lower courts rejected his claim since Colorado recognizes no claim of wrongful discharge against employers. } In 1992, The Colorado supreme Court concluded that: “Lorenz did present sufficient evidence at trial to establish a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine”
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Study No 2 : Conflict between professional employees and managers } The case of the New York City police department: 1- Computerized police car dispatching system called SPRINT. (1970) 2- Another system PROMIS was being considered (1977). 3- The New York committee employed a computer specialist as project director who in turn hired Virginia Edgerton, an experienced system analyst. 4- She expressed some concerns about the effectiveness of the system but was instructed to drop the matter. 5- She sent copies to the circle project committee but she was discharged for her work by the project director. 6-After looking at the case, The IEEE gave Virginia the award for outstanding Service in the public interest.
Background image of page 4
INTRODUCTION } The legal status of employee rights is undergoing modification both in the courts and in statutory law. In the courts, the modification is primarily the result of the increasing importance of the so-called public-policy exception which allows a defense against employers when the employees are acting to defend vital public interest. } In statutory law, the primary innovation is the law to protect whistle-blowers. } In the absence of a contact, an employer can discharge an employee at any time and for virtually any reason. Policy, often, acting to protect the public from a clear threat to health or safety is also taken by the courts to be covered by the public-policy exception.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Changing Legal Status of Employee Rights The Public Policy Exception It is important to know the following limits on the public-policy exception as it is now interpreted by the courts. - First, there is still no clear distinction between dismissals that violate public policy and those that affect only the “private” interests of employees. - Second, the courts have usually declined to give the employee protection where there is a mere difference in judgment between employer and employee.
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}