英语论文网

ding and miscommunication among the employees regarding their status in the company.

As mentioned above, the company is prohibited from discriminating on its employees by offering relocation benefits only to a select few. Whenever an employee is required to relocate to another worksite, the company is always required to pay the relocation costs or reimburse its employees for the additional costs incurred by the latter in the relocation. This is only fair considering that not all employment contracts have mobility clause where an employee agrees at the start of his employment that he will be willing to relocate if the circumstances so require.

However, even if there is a mobility clause in the employment contract, the employer still has to compensate his employees for their relocation costs. This is in keeping with justice and equity because after all, the employees are essential for the continuity of the business and without their willingness to relocate, the employer cannot force them to do so. The Employment Relocation Council or the ERC is the agency which serves to promote the rights of all professionals or employees facing relocation from their respective company. According to the ERC, the first and foremost rule which every employer should keep in mind is that there should be no discrimination against an employee to be relocated. Discrimination can be in the form of denying housing allowances to employees who have residences which are far from the new workplace and will necessarily need a place to stay.

Employers and employees should both be aware of the terms and conditions embodied in the contract of employment regarding relocation benefits and packages. For instance, a managerial employee may have greater relocation benefits compared with a rank and file employee and this permitted so long as the same is agreed upon by the parties concerned and embodied in the employment contract.

Be that as it may, every employer should exercise reasonableness in requiring employees to relocate. It cannot force any employee to transfer to a new location, if the latter has not agreed to begin with. If the terms of the employment contract permits relocation to a designated place only, no employee can be forced to move to a new office which is not included in the terms of his employment.

In the case of Midwest Education, as a result of its acquisition of Education Training Aids (ETA) , the company is contemplating on moving 17 of its employees from the Creative Development Division headed by Serena Tibaldo to San Jose California where the Computer Development and Communications of ETA headed by Jenny Lutz is located. Another proposal is to move majority of the Creative Division to the Massachusetts office.

According to Serena, it would be cheaper to hire new staff to fill the positions needed in the Massachusetts office than to relocate the ETA staff from San Jose. Admittedly, the costs of hiring new employees is lower than the costs of relocating ETA employees. However, Serena's reasons for adopting this approach is discriminatory. Her main reason for choosing hiring new employees instead of relocating those already existing is because she is unsure whether 'ETA's computer staff will fit her existing employees.' By saying this, she in the process made a discriminatory act of favoring Midwest Education employees over ETA employees and this is prohibited unde