Human Resource Management Law Example

Human Resource guidance Law physical exercise1. There is a page in the Comp eithers Employee Handbook that states that whatsoeverthing brought onto the Companys seat, including the employees themselves, is subject to random hunt for items belonging to the Company. There is a space for the employee to acknowledge put across of this notice. Mr. Yourprop has a copy of the handbook but never signed the page. Does that head? Explain.Even though it is best practice to have an employee sign any corporation polity or handbook, it is not required by law. Handbooks should overly be signed if there are any major updates to the lodge policies and procedures. Be consume the handbook outlines the policies and procedures of the order, it is important for the employees to acknowledge and promise to abide by them. The recognition of the company policies and procedures cigaret create an employment contract between the company and the employee. It there is ever an issue between the company and the employee, the acknowledgement ticks that the employee was advised of the companys policies and procedures.It is often misunderstood that be refusing or for partting to sign the handbook heart and soul that an employee is longer held responsible for following the companys policies contained in it. A company standnot withdraw an employee to sign the acknowledgment. However, they rat get supervisory programs to sign for them stating that the employee received the handbook. Should a legal issues come up, the company has proof the employee was aware of the policies and procedure of the company. (Employee Handbooks, 2014)2. Can you (or Mr. Yourprops supervisor) look to Yourprops assigned locker in the Companys on-site gym for digital recite? post your answer.The lockers are owned by the company and are provided to the employee for their convenience. about(prenominal) likely the companys handbook would include policies regarding the use of all of the facilities owned by the company and provided to the employee, including a provision to look for such facilities. Mr. Yourprop is believed to be in possession of stolen material, creating bonnie suspicion. In the case of OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) in regards to administrative searches at the workplace, the Supreme Court ruling stands that only reasonable suspicion is needed for search to be conducted. (Wikipedia, OConnor v. Ortega)3. Can you (or Mr. Yourprops supervisor) use a master tell to search Yourprops locked desk after he has left the premises for digital evidence? Support your answer.This question, like the previous one, poses the same dilemma. The fact that the supervisor has a master key and can search different areas of the building was most likely included in the company policies. To conduct a search of a private property, a search case would be needed. Mr. Yourprop can also argue that the desk is locked and he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the equipme nt in question is not the property of Mr. Yourprop and so a search warrant is not needed and so he cannot have a reasonable presumption of privacy. (Solomon, 2012)4. Makestuff Company uses a security system checkpoint at the grab to the building. A sign adjacent to the checkpoint states that the purpose of the checkpoint is for security staff to check for weapons or other materials that may be detrimental to the working environment or employee safety. Screening is casual and usually consists of verification of an employees Company ID card. Can security staff at this checkpoint be directed to open Mr. Yourprops briefcase and seize any probable digital evidence? Support your answer.Employee searches require a excellent balance of the employees rights and those of the clientele. The Fourth Amendment provides nurtureion against unreasonable search and seizure of their persons, homes, and personalized property. This applies to the government, and public work place, however, most p rivate employers are exempt. Private business are allowed a number of techniques when they suspect misconduct. Private employers are allowed random searches of employees personal property such as lunchboxes, purses, briefcases and coats with advance notification. Also, electronic monitoring, command and similar searches would require an employer provides notice to employees of such activity. (Garber, 2008). The company already has this indemnity in both the handbook and includes a sign at the entrance warning all visitors of their policy. Given that during the exit interview, Mr. Yourprop used language that could be interpreted as having committed criminal activity, the employer already has probably cause for a search. (King, 2005)5. Can you (or Mr. Yourprops supervisor) search Yourprops personal vehicle currently set in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer.In this case, the company has a legal right to search the employees vehicle while it is in the company spaces. The company has a policy in place that informed employees that it reserved the right to perform searches on employees to ensure proper policies and procedures are being followed. In this case, the company is trying to protect sensitive data which could be detrimental to the company if stolen.Generally, private employers can also perform personal property searches as long as advance notice is provided to the employee. A search of the vehicle park on the companys premises is not unreasonable given that the employee was given notice of the potential for vehicle searches and the apparent suspicion of his job-related misconduct. (Workplace Searches, 2015).6. If evidence of the theft of intellectual property is found, Makestuff Company may seek to pursue criminal prosecution. Can Mr. Yourprops supervisor require local police investigators to search his personal vehicle which is parked on the Company parking lot? Support your answer.The supervisor can legally direct local police to search the employees personal vehicle. The supervisor will notify to police that the vehicle is parked on company property and also contains evidence of criminal activity against the company. The search without a warrant of an automobile does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In 1925, in a case of Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132), the Supreme Court ruled that The warrantless search of a car does not violate the Constitution. The mobility of the automobile makes it impracticable to get a search warrant. (Wikipedia, Carroll v. United States).References1. Society for Human Resource Management (2014), Employee Handbooks Shouldemployees be required to sign an acknowledgment form for the employee handbook? What if an employee refuses?, Retrieved on March 28, 2016 from http//www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/signeehandbook.aspx2. Wikipedia, OConnor v. Ortega, Retrieved on March 30, 2016 fromhttps//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OConnor_v._Ortega3. Solomon, M. (2012) Computer F orensics JumpStart, 2nd Edition4. Garber, john E. (2008). Introduction to the human resources discipline ofworkplace safety and security, Retrieved on Retrieved on March 30, 2016 fromhttps//www.shrm.org/templatestools/toolkits/pages/introsafetyandsecurity.aspx5. King, G. (2005), A Public Employers Right to Search in the Workplace, Retrieved on April 2, 2016 from https//www.mml.org/insurance/shared/publications/leaf_newsletter/right_to_search.pdf6. Workplace fairness, Workplace Searches, Retrieved on April 3, 2016 fromhttps//www.workplacefairness.org/workplace-searches7. Wikipedia, Carroll v. United States, Retrieved on April 3, 2016 fromhttps//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States