Labour and employment law Case 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Centennial College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
706
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by AmbassadorBoarPerson679
SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT
LAW
Labor and Employment Law (HRPD 706-001)
Prof: Jim McVittie Submitted by:
Kavyashree Dodamani - 301239189
Priyadarshini Brahmbhatt - 301422448
Rishita Chahal - 301434051
Saleha Pandor - 301450659
Introduction:
This assignment looks at three cases that help us understand the laws about jobs and how people are treated at work. Each case is different, showing us various problems and solutions in employment and human rights law. In Case 1, we learn about someone who lost their job and claimed it wasn't fair. We see how the law decides if the employer was right or wrong in letting the person go. Case 2 talks about situations where certain workers get special treatment in employment laws. This is like an exception to the rules, and we explore why this happens.
Case 3 tells a story where someone at work faced unfair treatment because of their gender. It shows how the law handles discrimination issues and what consequences the employer faces.
Through these cases, we aim to uncover the rules that govern work relationships, balancing the rights of employers and employees while making sure everyone is treated fairly.
Case 1:
The following common law case involves the dismissal of a law-term employee and a common law wrongful dismissal against the employer. COURT FILE NO.: 12-55963 1. What are the issues the judge is asked to decide?
The following issues the judge is asked to decide,
1.
Whether PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc. had just cause to terminate Esther Brake's employment. The court was required
to determine if Esther Brake's performance and conduct amounted to incompetence or misconduct sufficient to
constitute real cause for dismissal. 2.
Whether Esther Brake was constructively dismissed by PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc. The court had to evaluate
whether PJ-M2R's actions, including Esther Brake's demotion and modifications to her terms of employment,
constituted a unilateral substantial alteration to Esther Brake's employment contract, entitling her to consider
herself constructively dismissed.
LABOUR & EMPLOYEMENT LAW
1
3.
In the event Esther Brake was found to have been wrongfully dismissed, either for lack of just cause or through
constructive dismissal, the court had to determine the appropriate common law reasonable notice period and assess
damages owed to Esther Brake based on her compensation during the notice period, less any mitigation earnings.
This required analysis of the relevant factors, including Esther Brake's age, length of service, nature of
employment, and availability of similar employment.
2. Do you agree with the decision?
The judge carefully considered the facts and applied the relevant legal principles to reach a reasonable decision. I
agree with the judge's findings that Brake was constructively dismissed without cause and entitled to significant
notice considering her circumstances. The judge determined a 20-month notice period was fair considering Brake's
age, years of service, the nature of her work, and difficulty securing similar employment. The judge provided a
well-reasoned analysis in determining the appropriate notice period and damages. Overall, I agree
with the decision.
Case 2:
1.
Identify three exemptions.
1. Exemptions from Part VIII of the Act - Exemptions for Public Holidays
It provides for an employee's rights. A compensated day off an official holiday or public holiday pay plus a
premium rate of pay, or another day off including public holiday pay, if the employee agrees to work on the
holidays or is required to perform.
Those who work as firemen, hunters, or fishers, building contractors, funeral directors, or other related positions ar
e exempt.
2. Exemptions from Part IX of the Act - Exemptions re Overtime Pay
The goal of this exemption is to give employers the chance to negotiate more accommodating hours of operation
and to pay employees for the additional hours they must put in when required to work overtime. Professionals,
including attorneys, architects, doctors, and a few others, are exempt.
3. Application of s. 73 of the Act - Exemptions re Temporary Help Agencies
LABOUR & EMPLOYEMENT LAW
2
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
This provision aims to define Particaka's duties and rules regarding temporary aid groups, their customers, and the
rights of task employees of temporary support organizations. According to the Local Health System Integration Act
of 2006, a person as well as a local health integration network are exempt.
2.
Do you agree with them? Explain?
Yes, I agree with this exclusion because several groups and people hold crucial responsibilities as they serve the
security of a nation, which makes them exempt from some parts of the law.
Case 3:
1.
Why was the employer found guilty? What human rights ground was violated?
It was determined that the employer was guilty of discrimination because Ms. Kohli was passed over for promotion
based on her gender, and when she challenged these decisions, she was retaliated against. As a result, gender
discrimination is violated under human rights law.
2.
Do you agree with the penalty? Please explain.
In terms of whether I agree with the penalty, I don't have a personal opinion. I can, however, provide an analysis.
The penalty seems to be in line with addressing the discrimination and its consequences. The damages awarded for
the loss of the right to be free from discrimination and the lost wages are typical remedies in cases of employment
discrimination. The requirement for the respondents to undergo human rights training and develop an anti-
discrimination policy with an internal complaints mechanism aims to prevent future instances of discrimination
within the organization. Overall, the penalty appears to be comprehensive and appropriate for addressing the
specific circumstances of the case.
Conclusion:
To sum up, these cases teach us about the many aspects of job laws. Case 1 explains how we decide if someone was treated fairly when losing their job. Case 2 shows when certain workers don't have to follow all the rules, and Case 3 reveals how the law deals with discrimination at work.
As laws change, these cases help us understand how to make fair decisions at work, promoting a workplace that respects everyone's rights and treats everyone with dignity and fairness.
LABOUR & EMPLOYEMENT LAW
3
Reference:
Brake v PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., 2016 ONSC 1795 (CanLII) (March 14, 2016). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc1795/2016onsc1795.html#cited
. E-laws
. Ontario.ca. (2019, October 10). https://www.ontario.ca/laws
LABOUR & EMPLOYEMENT LAW
4