|
Presently 23 states have the “right-to-work” law as per the 1947 federal Taft-Hartley Act, which ensures that no employee can be forced to join the union or pay any union fees on the condition of employment and also forbids any agreement between the employer and the unions before or after the hiring. However, this law is frequently mixed up with “at-will” employment which enables the employer the right to sack an employee with or without any reason. This article answers a few of the commonly asked questions on the subject: A person quit his/her job after signing an agreement for a payment of $5500 for 3 months. However, after a month this person was sacked by paying $4233 stating that Florida State was a right-to-work state.
Florida is a right-to-work state, but that does not mean that one can be forced to join a union or pay dues as an employment condition unless he/she is working for a railroad, an airline, or a federal agency. In the above scenario it is relevant that Florida is an employment-at-will state which means one can be sacked for any reason except illegal discrimination or presence of an employment agreement. If the agreement clearly says that one has to be paid $5500 for 3 months unconditionally, then he/she can sue for violation of the agreement. The court however finally will uphold the exact words in the agreement and also look at whether the company has a right to terminate the contract based on the performance of an employee. In the State of Nevada, can anyone be sacked for a silly reason such as the employer not liking the employee’s hair?
In Nevada or elsewhere the right-to-work law states that the employees have a right to decide on whether to join or financially back the unions. Also, Nevada being an employment-at-will state, one is employed outside the restrictions of a contract or on a negotiated union agreement. However, unless there is a mention in the handbook about the hair being part of the uniform, one cannot sack an employee for not liking his/her hair which might lead to discrimination. Can employers in the state of Kansas, which is a right-to-work state, issue an employee with a final written warning without giving a written warning first?
At-will employment would mean that the employer can terminate the employee without any caution. However, the employer has to do this within the restrictions of discrimination laws, unemployment and workers’ compensation. If different stages of disciplinary actions are stated in the employee handbook then in the event of termination, the attorney might find ways to make these stages enforceable. In the state of Nebraska, which is a right-to-work state, can a clause of non-compete be implemented?
Nebraska, a right-to-work state is not related to the non-compete agreement as it is not union related. A clause in an agreement whether enforceable or not depends on the time, geographical area or the type of work it restricts and also the type of business and the designation of the person when employed with the company and the current status. It would be better if the non-compete agreement is examined by an attorney who is experienced in handling non-competes. A decision can be taken whether to join the union or pay the union fees by understanding the right-to-work laws. It is better to ask an employment lawyer as it is confusing to differentiate between the right-to-work and employment-at-will law which helps in assessing situations related to employment.
Related Articles -
right to work, right to work states, right to work state, right to work laws, what is a right to work state, right to work law, what is right to work,
|
