Case Application Assignment 2 - Sajira Nageswaran

pdf

School

University of Waterloo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

200

Subject

Computer Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

5

Uploaded by GrandQuetzal3847

Report
HRM 200 Case Application Assignment Case 2: The Working Parent’s Predicament Sajira Nageswaran 21027327 November 26, 2023 University of Waterloo Professor Katrina Di Gravio
Main Issue The main issue in this case is that Sarah, a single mother, was hired by Lumbridge Manufacturing under specific working hours, which she later requested to be adjusted to fit the needs of her childcare. Sarah and Lumbridge Manufacturing have different expectations about Sarah’s work hours. Since Lumbridge denied Sarah’s modification request for her schedule, her contract was terminated on the idea that lied about her availability during the application process. The main point of argument is how Lumbridge can satisfy Sarah’s working hours while allowing her to fulfil her parenting responsibilities. The disagreement calls into question the fairness in resolving schedule difficulties at work and draws attention to the possible bias against Sarah as a single mother. Legal/Legislation Arguments Sarah’s Argument The Canadian Human Rights Acts and Provincial Human Rights Codes, such as the Ontario Human Rights Code, protect individuals from discrimination based on family status. The core argument of Sarah’s claim is the allegation that Lumbridge discriminated against her by not meeting her childcare working hour demands because she is a single mother. Employers are obligated by Section 7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s family status unless doing so would cause unreasonable difficulties (Branch, 2019). Sarah could argue that she must request a shift change to match her child’s need, and Lumbridge’s reluctance to comply without considering other options is an infringement on her rights. Lumbridge’s Argument Employers are entitled to uphold the reasonable expectation outlined in an employment contract as well as their operational needs. Lumbridge could argue that Sarah fabricated her availability during the hiring process, which affected the company’s operational efficiency. Lumbridge could reference Section 25 (1)(a) of the Ontario Employment Act, which permits employers to terminate an employee for just cause, including dishonesty (Government of Ontario, 2019). They may claim that granting her modified modification would result in unreasonable difficulties as it
would interfere with or cause issues with other staff coverage and schedule creation during crucial hours. Lastly, some staff may believe the treatment would be unfair. Personal Opinion The challenge lies in the balance between Sarah’s obligation as a mother and the needs of her employer’s operation. Compromises like a slowly adapting shift to the preferred timetable or investing in different daycare options might be discussed during mediation. In this case, I think Sarah’s argument is stronger because, as a single mother she is seeking a schedule adjustment so she can still support her daughter physically and financially. According to Canadian Law, specifically the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers have the obligation to accommodate their family situation to the extent that it does not cause any difficulty to the company (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1962). To balance her family duties with her profession, Sarah communicated a request for a schedule adjustment that complies with the legal need (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1962). Lumbridge’s emphasis on alleged dishonesty ignored the need of the employer to make a reasonable effort to meet the requirements of the employee’s family. In addition, it’s clear to see that from Lumbridge’s unwillingness to look at other options or make genuine attempts to make accommodations since they believe it would create difficulty for the company. Furthermore, it can be viewed as an impulsive decision to fire Sarah without first considering any acceptable revisions. Given that Canada’s legal system promotes cooperation and reasonable accommodations, Lumbridge’s position may not fully satisfy its legal duty to take into account an employee’s family obligations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Recommendations In future cases, proactive measures can prevent similar conflicts. Companies could improve their recruiting procedures by laying out work expectations in full and specific detail and talking about possible flexibility before hiring a candidate. It’s crucial to have open lines of communication for staff to discuss unanticipated personal situations, including childcare demands. To minimize unnecessary hardships in the future, upholding human rights commitments should be developed by employers and workers working together to create acceptable solutions, in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Commission's policy on family status accommodation (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1962). HR staff and management should get training on human rights law, particularly as it relates to family status. Introducing flexible work arrangements, including remote work or adjusted schedules, can help meet the demands of a wide range of employees. Establishing mediation or conflict resolution processes might also help settle disagreements effectively and efficiently which creates a more welcoming and accepting work atmosphere for staff. Conclusion Under Canadian Law, balancing an employee’s family responsibilities with an employer’s operational requirements may be difficult as demonstrated by the Sarah and Lumbridge Manufacturing case. In order to handle this argument for all parties to be treated fairly, it is crucial to have clear communication to take the necessary steps.
Citations Branch, L. S. (2019, July 12). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canadian Human Rights Act . Laws-Lois.justice.gc.ca. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 . (2014, July 24). Ontario.ca . https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00e41 Government of Ontario. (2019). Your guide to the Employment Standards Act . Ontario.ca. https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0 Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). The Ontario Human Rights Code | Ontario Human Rights Commission . Ohrc.on.ca. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ontario-human-rights-code 2. Setting job requirements | Ontario Human Rights Commission . (2022). Ohrc.on.ca. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/2-setting-jo b-requirements