106
CHAPTER 28
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
Answers to Learning Objectives
1. The relationship of employer and employee arises from the contract of employment, which is
usually express, but may be implied.
2. Statutory modifications of an employer’s defenses under the common law include the Federal
Employer’s Liability Act, the Federal Safety Appliances Act, worker’s compensation, and the
Lesson Outline
1. The common law had developed rules governing the relationship between an employer and an
employee. These rules have been modified by statute, but there are remnants of the common law.
in each employee’s contract.
4. The employer under the common law has five well-defined duties:
a. Duty to exercise care⎯the employer is liable for negligently caused harm to employees. The
employer must exercise that degree of care which the nature of the employment demands.
b. Duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work
c. Duty to provide safe tools, machinery, and appliances
d. Duty to employ a sufficient number of competent employees
e. Duty to instruct inexperienced employees in the use of dangerous machinery and chemicals
5. Under the common law, the employer had three common-law defenses:
7. The employer is liable for the torts of employees when these torts are committed in the course of the
employee’s employment.
8. An employee’s duties to the employer are as follows:
Chapter 28 Employer and Employee Relations
107
a. To perform the job
b. To keep certain business matters confidential
c. Inventions or discoveries if the employment was for the express purpose of inventing the things
discovered or if they were discovered during working hours.
b. Supplemental security income is provided to people in financial need who are over 65, who are
blind, or who are disabled.
c. Unemployment compensation is for workers who meet specified conditions set by the states.
(p. 331) The court said the Boeing Code was likely to promote an atmosphere of fair treatment, but an
“atmosphere” did not alter the at will employment relationship. Quedado v. Boeing Co., 276
P.3d 365 (Wash. Ct. App.)
(p. 335) The court pointed out that a compensable injury was one that was causally connected to the
employee’s employment. Here the injury arose out of and in the course of Chesler’s
employment. Chesler v. City of Derby, 899 A.2d 624 (Conn. App. Ct.)
Answers to Questions
(Page 339)
1. The relationship of employer and employee is created from a contract of employment either express
or implied by conduct that demonstrates that the parties agree that one is the employer and the other
the employee.
3. When discharged without good cause, a non–at-will employee may sue the employer for money
damages and in some cases to be restored to the job.
4. If an employment contract does not state terms other than the compensation, the terms are
determined by law, custom, employee handbooks, and possibly by union contracts.
is contributorily negligent, for example.
7. An employee who is covered by workers’ compensation normally cannot recover for a willfully
self-inflicted injury or an injury sustained while intoxicated.
8. An employer is liable for injuries that employees cause to third parties when the employee
committed the injury in the course of employment or when caused by the employer’s failure to
enforce safe working procedures, not providing safe equipment, or not employing competent
employees.
Answers to Case Problems
(Page 340)
1. No. The court held that NYU’s letters renewing O’Neill’s employment for specific academic years
and the provision in the faculty handbook regarding non-tenured faculty showed a fixed term of
employment. When he was fired in April, it was in the middle of his current employment year.
O’Neill v. New York University, 944 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. App. Div.)
4. Yes. The court said that Rodr did not cease to be in the course of his employment just because he
was not doing a specifically prescribed task. The test was whether the work was necessary for the
benefit or interest of his employer. Since in the course of his employment Rodr performed acts
which he deemed necessary for the benefit of his employer during which he was injured, he was
eligible for workers’ compensation. Yzer, Inc. v. Rodr, 2012 WL 1994811 (Okla.)
Chapter 28 Employer and Employee Relations
109
be bound by any contract limiting its right to discharge its employees. Antonio v. The Sygma
Network, Inc., 458 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir.)
7. Yes. Even though Cotton is no longer employed by ReadyLink, the court stated that a former
employee may not use confidential information gained from a former employer in competition with
the former employer. ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 720 (Cal. Ct. App.)