Legal Issues

The implementation of a change in any system that affect employees without obtaining their entire consent or coming to a settlement on the issue, in the first instance, is questionable. It is indeed a mandatory in the workplace to have a proper communication line between the superiors and the employees to establish good rapport in the company (Thompson, 2002). Likewise, through proper communication in a company, there would be lesser problems on miscommunication (Picardi, 2001). Since there was no communication happened at all, in this case, the drivers would have to go through a reduction in their net pay due to the change in the billing and bookkeeping practices.

Unless, the change is statutorily enforceable, the system could not have been implemented without adequately compensating the drivers. The company could take the defense that continuation of work by the drivers despite the changes as aforesaid having been implemented could be considered as an implied consent. However, the imposition or application of unfair means to arm-twist (the direction to  clean out their truck and move to another job ) the drivers to accept the changes proposed to be effected, would lay bare the coercive tactics of the company.  It should be noted that the employers cannot terminate employees in an instant, without the proper intervention of the rules and guidelines, because of the law of contract of employment (Bolton  Dewatripont, 2005).

The demand of Smith to have the surcharge change reflected in paycheck stub is not justified. The facts speak loud of the drivers  dissent to the new system promulgated by the company. The facts also record the owner   operator Edgar McMaster had informed Fife that the drivers  continued to complain among themselves about the unfairness of the fuel surcharge change . This is established evidence to facts that Smith had substance in his demands.

Now, the circumstances leading to the discharge of Smith seem more a subtle effort to hamper the dissent brewing among drivers. Evidence has not been established of any disorderly conduct displayed by Smith prior to April 2. There is also no evidence of any criminal intent by Smith to cause any harm to Fife or Derrick. The facts recorded only suggest that Smith spoke aloud, got up from his chair and moved towards Derrick whereupon Fife ordered the discharge of Smith. Derrick had no authority to discharge Smith. Derrick spoke beyond his profile. There is no record of any physical assault caused to Derrick by Smith. Smith s moving forward could be related to either an unconscious reflex to prove a point. Emotional distress or any actions that hurt feelings of a person is not considered as physical injury (Lasser 2009).

Given the facts indicated in the case and the observations as aforesaid, it can be concluded that the conduct of Smith is a direct response to, per se, the  unauthorized  directions of Derrick. The fact would remain that though the main topic of discussion was, of course, the change in fuel surcharge, the undesirable comment by Derrick would have found similar response from any other driver irrespective of the topic of conversation. Thus it can be safely concluded that the conduct of Smith is unrelated to the meeting of January 13.

Further, it seems evident that the claim made by Fife of  earlier misconduct  is absolutely false. It is evident that the sole reason of having Smith discharged is to stifle dissent among drivers or rather to set an example of the consequences in the event the matter is pursued by any other drivers. It therefore concluded that conduct of the company has not been as per acceptable norms of business management.