Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published August 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM | Page modified August 28, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Washington state Supreme Court upholds employer's right to fire

The Washington Supreme Court's ruling in Briggs v. Nova Services protects the principle of at-will employment, which is important to running a productive business and a high-wage economy.

THE Washington Supreme Court made the right ruling this week in the case of Briggs v. Nova Services. The court reaffirmed an employer's right to dismiss an employee — a right that is important to running a productive business and a high-wage economy.

The case involved Nova Services, a Spokane nonprofit that helps people with disabilities find jobs. Some managers at Nova went to the board of directors, said the CEO was incompetent and demanded her dismissal.

The board hired an attorney to investigate, and the attorney advised them it could keep either the CEO or two of the managers. The board kept the boss, who fired the two managers. Four other managers and two other employees, who had threatened to quit if this happened, walked out. Later, they filed a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

These were employees not covered by a contract. The general rule is that the employer can dismiss such employees at will, without having to prove anything to a third party.

There are exceptions. An "at-will" employee can't be fired for certain public things, like how he votes or how he prays. He cannot be fired for organizing a union. But the list of protections is short, and for good reasons. One is that the ability to dismiss an employee lowers the risk of hiring a new one. Employment at will promotes job creation.

Companies may agree to limit their at-will rights by signing labor contracts. That is their business. It is a whole other thing for the courts to do it for everyone, especially on a flimsy case like this.

The Briggs plaintiffs used a line from a law passed in 1933, declaring it to be state policy to protect workers "in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protections."

This vague statement is in the "whereas" section of a law about injunctions and strikes. It had nothing to do with protecting managers who hated their boss.

It is amazing that only five justices — Jim Johnson, Charles Johnson, Gerry Alexander, Barbara Madsen and Richard Sanders — got it right. Susan Owens, Tom Chambers, Debra Stephens and Mary Fairhurst, who sided with the complaining managers, would have made a mess of the labor law of Washington.

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

More Editorials headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.


Get home delivery today!

More Editorials

NEW - 5:04 PM
Washington's state House should pass workers compensation reform bill

NEW - 5:05 PM
Breathe easier, a plan to stop burning coal for power

Heed auditor's recommendation about consolidating school health plans

Uncover managers' role in Seattle schools scandal

Detractors of crusade against childhood obesity should eat their words

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising