Employer Duty of Care
Employer Duty of Care
Employers Duty of Care
As an employee, when is going beyond the call of duty considered too much that it reaches beyond the scope of employment? As an employer, what actions are surrounded under the duty of care that protects them and their staff? The actions that an employee takes relating to work responsibilities can cause unfavorable expenses to an employer. One factor that is a component in determining responsibility is the intent that was positioned by the employee. What rights does and an employee and an employer have in these types of situations? These questions and thoughts can be derived from the viewing of the video “Employers Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation.” We will examine these questions to foster a clearer picture on this topic.
An employee scope of employment is defined by the “Business Dictionary” as a range of activities, duties or responsibilities that an employee is reasonably expected to carry out in their position (Business Dictionary, 2010). Jake, the service manager that was portrayed in the video, concluded that his objective was to make sure every car that came through the shop was thorough and perfect. The objective that was set forth by the dealership was to offer a free oil change to its customers. The actions that Jake proceeded to endorse caused a backup on the campaign the dealership sponsored for free oil changes. These actions also caused the dealership to spend more on the campaign than what was originally planned. Jakes intent to check each car from top to bottom was profoundly notable and considerate, but other measures could have been discussed and planned in order to have the customers come back later for other services.
Under the guidelines of Workers Compensation, most employers who contribute to the workers compensation fund are eager to accept workers compensation claims knowingly because the employee cannot in turn sue the company. In relation to the video clip, “Employers Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation,” the dealership is responsible for the injury that happened to the mechanic. The employee does not have to show negligence towards the company and the company cannot raise any defenses to say that they are not negligent. Even though the mechanic jokingly explained what happened, it would be in the interest of the employer to have the mechanic file a workers compensation claim. The exclusivity rule states that the employees only remedy to the claim lies with workers compensation.
Within the segment of the video clip, management indicated that the mechanic was recently promoted to the management team. This appointment made the mechanic an exempt employee for the company. This status makes the employee not eligible for overtime hours. The mechanic stated that since the campaign of providing free oil changes to customers had started, he had been working overtime for two days in order to complete the task. The mechanic-performed oil changes that were expected but he went outside of his responsibilities to complete other