http://thebuyosphere.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/costco.jpg?w=300&h=300
Although it may be in a company’s best interest to dismiss an employee who is frequently unavailable to work for long durations of time, it is unethical to do so without proper reasoning. For Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., the declaring of Frank Naccarato’s employment agreement “frustrated” (as if the relationship had been terminated) resulted in an ethical miscue and a suing for “wrongful dismissal” (2). Naccarato “had been continually absent for five years as result of depression” (2). His doctor described the next day he could be available to work as “unpredictable”, and was in search of psychiatric help for his patient (2). This however, did not satisfy the criterion of no “likely return to work in the foreseeable future” which is necessary to establish the employment as frustrated. Frank Naccarato was being treated on improper grounds. Consequently in court, “wrongful-dismissal damages” were required to be paid for by Costco (3). There is nothing unethical about eliminating an employee from the pay roll as long as it is executed with proper justification.