The implied contractual exception may be difficult to establish. Courts are reluctant to keep verbal promises of long-term employment because business relationships are often dynamic and uncertain. In addition, employers often include bold terms in employee training documents and manuals that make it clear that the manual does not create contractual rights for the employee or contractual obligations for the employer. In addition, the fact that an employer has the right to unilaterally amend the manual, which it could not do under contract law, undermines an employee`s confidence in the manual as an implied contract. Although the level of employment is at will, it can be changed contractually. For example, workers represented by unions are usually protected by a collective agreement that requires a „just cause” for dismissal. Executives may also have written contracts that require a „significant reason” for termination. Factors that would cause this include unsatisfactory performance, misconduct and economic necessity; These factors can be detailed in the collective agreement or in the employment contract. Under the original law, Montana employers could only fire employees at will during the probationary period, which was set at six months.
After this probationary period, employers could only dismiss employees for cause. However, among the new amendments to this law, some key points have changed: unlimited employment was created at the end of the 19th century. It was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court during Lochner`s time, when members of the U.S. judicial system deliberately sought to prevent government regulation of labor markets.  During the 20th century, many states changed the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions or changing standard expectations in the employment contract as a whole. In workplaces where a union is recognized for collective bargaining and in many public sector professions, the normal standard for termination is that the employer must have a „just reason.” Otherwise, subject to legal rights (in particular prohibitions of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act), most states adhere to the general principle that employers and employees can tolerate the protection they choose against dismissal.  Unlimited employment remains controversial and remains a central topic of discussion in law and economics, particularly with regard to macroeconomic efficiency, which allows employers to dismiss workers summarily and arbitrarily. At will means that an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason, other than an illegal reason, or for no reason, without any legal liability. Similarly, an employee is free to leave a workplace at any time for any reason or without adverse legal consequences. Unlimited employment does not allow employers to terminate an employment relationship for any reason. In the event of a dispute, the employer must be able to prove that he had a legal reason for the dismissal.
In the event of a breach of contract or unlawful termination, it is in the interest of both parties to use the services of an employment lawyer. While an employment relationship without a contract that states otherwise is legally considered an arbitrarily valid employment contract, there are exceptions to the employer`s right to terminate without giving reasons. Employers may continue to be held liable for unlawful dismissal if: The general principle underlying the concept of employment at will is that doctrine promotes efficiency and flexibility in the context of employment. Unlimited employment allows employees to find the position that best suits their talents and allows employers to find the best employees for their needs. Collective agreements often contain conditions on how and when an employer can fire an employee. Some companies also regularly have their employees sign employment contracts. Both agreements may involve termination only for cause, which essentially outweighs doctrine at will. In practice, „at will” means that an employer can dismiss an employee at any time for any reason (other than an illegal reason) or for no reason, without incurring any legal liability.
This freedom also applies to employees who may leave a workplace at any time for any reason or without adverse legal consequences. Above all, „at will also means that an employer can change the conditions of the employment relationship without notice and without consequences”.  For example, an employer may change the salary or commission structure and change or cancel benefits. While this type of change may not be illegal, it is not advisable as employees are free to reject the revised terms and leave. However, the rule makes „workers vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden layoffs, limited or on-call work schedules based on the employer`s needs, and unexpected reductions in wages and benefits.”  While all-you-can-eat employment allows employers to fire an employee at any time without giving reasons, it is important for employers to review state laws prior to termination, as some states have additional requirements for unlimited employment. In New York, the first case to take up Wood`s rule was Martin v. New York Life Ins Co. in 1895. Bartlett J claimed that New York law now followed Wood`s document, meaning an employee who received $10,000 and paid a salary for more than a year could be fired immediately.
The case did not concern the previous authority. Four years earlier, in 1891, Adams v Fitzpatrick had ruled that New York law followed the common practice of requiring termination similar to payment terms. However, subsequent cases from New York followed until the early 20th century. ==External links== William Blackstone`s original common law rule for the dismissal of workers provided that, unless otherwise agreed, employees would be deemed to be hired for a certain period of one year.  Throughout the 19th century, most northern states adhered to the rule that the period until which an employee was paid (one week, one month, or one year) determined the notice period to be given before a dismissal took effect. For example, in massachusetts in 1870, Tatterson v. Suffolk Mfg Co. held that the length of an employee`s employment dictated the missed notice period.  In contrast, a Tennessee court held in 1884 that an employer should be allowed to fire any employee or any number of employees for any reason.  An individual or collective agreement based on the general doctrine of freedom of contract could still stipulate that an employee should be dismissed only for cause or „legitimate reason” or that the elected representatives of employees have a say in whether a dismissal should take effect […].