Can a company instruct employees to not call police? As a manager, I received this email from my store manager that came from the district manager. Team, you cannot call the police without my approval, if I am not available it would fall to (Blank) or (Blank). This is not optional. I need every store manager to review this with their team today. All Managers need to know this. Your night crew leaders need to know this policy, as well. Is this instruction legally valid? Can I legally ignore it?
Employers in CO and at least 43 US states cannot lawfully fire an employee for reporting a crime to the police, or calling 911. It falls under the public policy exception to at-will employment. Some examples or this are covered here. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf Two examples of statutory text, but most will fall under case law. California Labor Code section 1102.5(b), an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee who discloses information to a law enforcement agency where the employee has a reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of federal or state law. Montana Code 39-2-904. Elements of wrongful discharge -- presumptive probationary period. (1) A discharge is wrongful only if: (a) it was in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; Collier v. Superior Court (MCA, Inc.) (1991) In this case we conclude that an employee who is terminated in retaliation for reporting to his or her employer reasonably suspected [228 Cal. App. 3d 1120] illegal conduct by other employees that harms the public as well as the employer, has a cause of action for wrongful discharge Palmateer v.International Harvester Company In this case, Ray Palmateer alleged that he was fired from his job with International Harvester after he provided information to local law enforcement authorities about potential criminal acts by a coworker and indicated that he would assist in any criminal investigation and subsequent trial. In this case, nothing in the Illinois Constitution or statutes required or permitted an employee to report potential criminal activity by a coworker. However, the court found that public policy favored citizen crime fighters and the exposure of criminal activity. Thus, Palmateer brought an actionable claim for retaliatory discharge
Garrity Rule There is a &quot;Garrity Rule&quot;. It is derived from Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In that case the US Supreme Court held that military and law-enforcement officers and other public employees are not required to sacrifice their right against self-incrimination in order to avoid dismissal. Several police officers were accused of &quot;ticket fixing&quot; . They were interviewed, and although they were told they had a right not to incriminate themselves, were threatened with dismissal if they did not &quot;cooperate&quot;. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the employees’ statements, made under threat of termination, were compelled by the state in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision asserted that: ... the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent. The statements were held not to be admissible. The US Supreme Court opinion can be found here. Effect of the Rule I find several sources (some listed below) indicating that public employees, including military personnel, may not be compelled, under threat of dismissal or serious discipline, to waive or refrain from invoking, their rights against self-incrimination. If such employees are subject to such threats, any statements are considered compelled, and are not admissible against the makers of the statements, much as if a Miranda warning had not been given to a person questioned while under arrest. This does not make the statements inadmissible against a different defendant. The procedures in courts-martial now require &quot;Garrity Warnings&quot;, and do not attempt to force officers or enlisted persons to testify to self-recriminating facts. I did not find any source suggesting that merely because testimony had been given in a court-martial, it is inadmissible. Nor did I find any source stating that merely being aware of inadmissible testimony renders a prosecutor or judge unable to continue. Judges hear inadmissible testimony every time there is a suppression hearing in which the evidence is in fact suppressed, and that is very frequent. It is only juries who must not hear such testimony. Io invoke the rule, there would need to be evidence that a witness had been ordered not to invoke the 5th, or threatened with dismissal or other serious consequence if s/he did so, and would have invoked it in the absence of such orders or threats. In the original Garrity case, the defendants objected at the trial and at other appropriate times. It was those objections which triggered the ruling. Conclusion In short it seems to me that the writers of the show significantly overstated the breadth and effect of the rule, perhaps for dramatic purposes. Sources In the October 2018 issue of &quot;The Adcisor&quot; a publication of the US Navy's Judge Advocate General's office, it is stated thst the following warning must be given to any civilian employees who are being interviewed as part of a military investigation of a crime: Garrity Warnings You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings. in Garrity Rights for Law-Enforcement Officers by By Aaron Nisenson it is stated that: The basic premise of the Garrity protection is straightforward: First, an Officer cannot be compelled, by the threat of serious discipline, to make statements that may be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding; second, an Officer cannot be terminated for refusing to waive his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968). Therefore, if an Officer gives a coerced statement, the statement is &quot;protected,” and cannot be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. However, the practical application of Garrity has been complicated and uncertain. The Courts have been all over the map in their application of Garrity: with some Courts applying Garrity to protect Officers’ Constitutional rights, and other Courts seeming to try to evade Garrity. Thus, in the Garrity area, Officers are best served by following the old adage: prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. The initial issue in the application of Garrity is the Department’s actions in extracting a statement from an Officer. In order for Garrity protection to apply, the government must have “coerced” a statement from an Officer. Generally, this coercion consists of an order, under threat of termination, to give a statement on a work related matter The US Rules for Courts-Martal states in Rule 405. Preliminary hearing section (f) (2) (D) (on page 36) that an accused has the right to: Be informed of the right against self-incrimination under Article 31.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
I'm not going to comment on what your manager is doing specifically, since I don't know all the facts. But in general: As a general rule, businesses have freedom of contract. This means they can choose to do business with, or not do business with, anyone they want. There are specific laws that create exceptions to this freedom of contract. The most important are federal and state civil rights laws, which prohibit many businesses from discriminating on the basis of certain protected classes, such as race, sex, religion, etc. In general, "locals vs. out-of-towners" is not a protected class, and therefore no law explicitly prohibits this type of discrimination. However, it's possible a court could find that "locals" is a proxy for some actual protected class--for example, if the hotel is in a city and the "locals" are predominantly Black.
I don't think so. When it comes to wages, there may be a Tarifvertrag (union-negotiated wage schedule), which may apply even if the employee in question is no union member. It is enough if the employer is member of the employer's association negotiating the schedule, or in certain other cases. (Clever, really, by extending union benefits to non-members they weaken the unions ...) The Tarifvertrag stipulates minimum wages for certain positions, and it may define those positions implement that. An employer could not underpay a skilled machinist by calling her a 'gadget specialist' or similar non-scheduled position. But the deputy department head is likely paid above the highest bracket of the wage schedule, called außertariflich (AT, beyond the schedule). At this level, it comes down to individual negotiations between the employee and employer.
What is the correct way to handle this situation? Strictly speaking, each driver exceeding the speed limit is in violation of the traffic sign even if everybody else also infringes it. Thus it is completely valid for the police to pull &amp; fine anyone from among those drivers. Statutes like the one you mention are intended for scenarios where a driver departs significantly --and for no apparent [lawful] reason-- from the speed limit, such as driving at 20 mph in a 55 mph zone. Typically a driver would not get pulled over in the scenario you mention (driving at 62 mph where everybody else drives at 65 mph). The exception would be some police department(s) requiring its cops to meet a quota of fines per week, but that would be quite a questionable practice having nothing to do with the legislative intent. Speed limits are supposed to represent normal and reasonable movement of traffic. If informed consensus is that a particular speed limit is inconsistent with that principle (for instance, where limit is artificially low and raising it would not compromise safety), then a request could be submitted to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
If you were in the office, and ready to take instructions what to do from your manager, then you were legally working and need to be paid. There's plenty of things you can do in an office without electricity unless it's too dark. If the manager didn't ask you to do anything, it's the company's problem, not yours. If you took the opportunity to leave for 90 minutes to do your weekly shopping, then you shouldn't get paid.
The role of the 101 call handlers is to assist with enquiries and to progress reports of non-emergency incidents - not deceive. They are not (usually) police officers do not (routinely) have access to PNC. Even if they did, they are under no obligation to divulge potentially operationally-sensitive and/or personal information over the phone; especially as the caller's identity cannot be verified. In response to comments and the OP edit on 09/03/2022... The police will not confirm if you are wanted on warrant over the phone. You must attend your local police station and bring some form of identification with you such as a passport, driving licence or birth certificate. Source1 You can find your local police force here 1A random example taken from one of the 43 territorial police forces in england-and-wales