Employment and Natalie Essay

Natalie Attired worked at birds for one year when she was fired for getting a sleeve stain on her upper right arm. Natalie was fired because Ms. Biddy claimed that she her appearance was move the clients while they were trying to eat. There is no employee manual or written policy close to employee conduct. Natalie while for unemployment in July 2010 but was denied because she was terminated for misconduct. Biddys has been in for over 20 years and is run by Biddy Baker, age 60. Biddy pronounces her waitress performance every lead months.Questions PresentedWas Natalies tattoo in incident a distraction to the customers in the restaurant? Were there any guidelines in place that would in event tell Natalie that she was in violation of the dress code? Did Ms. Biddy chatter to her employee about how she wants there to present themselves while at work? shortened AnswersTwo customers complained that Natalies tattoo was distracting. There were not any guidelines or employee handbook that stated was acceptable or not acceptable. Ms. Biddy did evaluate her employees every 3 months but in the evaluations she did not state how she cute her employees to present themselves. Rules that ApplyAccording to the naked Mexico Statutes Annotated, 51-1-7 51-1-7. Disqualification for benefits A. An individual shall be change for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits (1) if it is determined by the character that the individual left employment voluntarily without good cause in connection with the employment. However, a person shall not be denied benefits under this split(2) if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct committed with the individuals employment. Also in 555 P.2d 696 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976. misconduct . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton sack of an em ployers interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employers interests or of the employees duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand unspotted inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the dissolver of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in marooned instances, or good faith errors in judgment or goody are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute. depth psychologyAccording to the definition of misconduct as stated above Ms. Attried did not in fact get fired for misconduct she did in fact get fired because Ms. Biddy felt her tattoo was a clog to her business. In Natalies evaluations she was evaluated as a go od employee who just postulate to learn a few things to get her job skills up to par. nowhere is it stated that she did anything to make her employer have to take negative action against her. She was constantly on time for work, she was pleasant with the customers, and she usually gets all the orders. ConclusionNatalie was falsely denied her unemployment benefits because she does not fit the criteria to be denied because of misconduct. She did perform her job to the best or her knowledge and there was no handbook to ensure that she was wrong about getting the tattoo. If Ms. Biddy wants her employees to conduct themselves a certain way she should interpret guideline to ensure that they in fact know what is expected of them. Natalie should be able to receive her benefits and should have them backtracked to her original file date of unemployment.