A Human Story: Written evidence in the lack of moral and ethical obligation
I agree employers should provide a method for formally filing a grievance. However, simple statements for safety measures, such as "must have the ability to perform" prove to be a defense for the alleged accused person that appears to be falling short on safe ethics and morals, as is the case involving Aaron Hernandez. See: http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9603006/nflpa-files-grievance-n...
The report suggests his checkered past is deemed negative enough for an employer "to act" upon his behavioral performance while demonstrating skill and ability on the field, according to ESPN "NFLPA files grievance on behalf of Aaron Hernandez." As it seems, the organization originally hired A. Hernandez as an "at risk" player, or at minimum, allowed him to continue to play, and released him after additional underlying issues transpired. Perhaps, contractual and risk of liability bound both parties in continuing the relationship. Nonetheless, for employers, the best time to handle unethical issues is when they occur, not when reputation is poorly publicized or it seems to be a convenient time in light of collective circumstance. These timeframes place employers under scrutiny as it questions ethical standards about the working relationship and original Agreements made.
How to separate safely and sever relationships is never the original or future intended plan but it proves to illustrate the signs and outcomes of following the pattern of a broken system. When people represent employers, not all employees agrees with abiding by "on and off the field" employer image, albeit, money spent is from the hands of the employer. Employees are often hard pressed to live bound "off the field" by general employment expectations when the motive is money motivated and there is no need to be found for considering other merit(s). Human behavior acts best under the physical presence of the person under which one holds relationship. As a relationship separates and the future is no longer promising for both parties, in view is the hard money at stake. Feelings of entitlement make evidence on paper most important as it becomes primary testimony. Looking for a loophole to avoid punishment, further loss, and from having to hold up to the over-arching theme of right morals, plays a big role. If holding up to right moral ad standards are rules difficult to follow, consider acting upon them at the right time, no matter the cost, because delaying right decisions proves to be unfruitful.
For employers, forming clearly defined expectations are hardly defined when general expectations are no longer in view. Learning from experience is pivotal in re-establishing self-worth. It is worth considering change when a practice becomes a wrong cycle. Watch for counter productive policies and procedures because dotting every "I" and crossing every "T" implies corporate responsibility, and without doing your "homework," all accusations, recourse, and judgment will potentially be determined by a third party. Keeping "your" word implies a responsibility to do the right thing and it's the historic problem of humanity that, without change in a right direction, the current system set will happily offer more rules by which all are expected to follow.