Free Essay On Employment Law

1. Wright can be qualified as a full-time employee of Reactors Ltd. rather than considering him, an independent contract on the basis of each of below mentioned tests:
Control Test: Wright had been working at Reactors Ltd. for considerable period of two long years. He was being paid an hourly rate irrespective of the fact whether the organization was profitable during that time or not. He had begun his career as a crucial advisor to the organization, and was reporting the Executive board’s chairman. He was also promoted to a higher authoritative role despite the chairman asking him to become the general manager. Despite his position in the organization being a “non-permanent” one, he was chosen for the role and he even agreed to the various terms laid out by the company along with the payment of hourly rate.
Risk Test: Considering the fact that he was paid an hourly rate, the company is obliged to pay him even if the financial state of the company is not very good, and hence the risk of loss rests on the employer, i.e., Reactors Ltd. Moreover, there is no possibility of Wright profiting a great deal as a result of the company’s success. This is because his payment was billed on an hourly rate without any share from the profits generated by the company.
Organization test: Wright played an influential role and was also a pivotal member of the management body of Reactors Ltd. The company’s welfare was largely dependent on the position held by Wright, particularly during his tenure as a General Manager there.
Tools Test: The article did not provide any information with relevance to the tools used by Wright. However, upon further exploration and scrutiny of the situation, Wright apparently looked like having used a separate office cabin, a compute, and a plethora of other office supplies which the company offered. In addition to these supplies and resources, Wright was even provided with reports upon which his work would depend.
Durability and Exclusivity of Relationship test: Wright was an employer at Reactors Ltd. and his employment tenure extended for a significant period of two long and successful years. Even though the fact that his position at the company was a non-exclusive position, was not included in the employment contract, it is easily understandable that a General Manager, managing the whole organization, and billed on an hourly basis, would not have both the time and resources, to work for a different client other than Reactors Ltd.
As Wright meets the requirements of a full-time employee at Reactors Ltd., he is liable to remit taxes as well as CPP for the duration of his tenure at Reactors Ltd. – two years. Possibly, interest and fines might also be charged by the CRA.
2. a) The 14 different bases of prohibited discrimination that fall under the purview of the Human Rights Act, are the ones upon which Monique could possibly base her complaint. Regrettably, for Monique, there is absence of any basis of explicit discrimination, because physical appearance does not fall under the purview of this particular Act. Nevertheless, Monique holds a chance to file a case, if she is in a position to successfully prove that piercing was a religious ritual or tribal custom. If she does so, then she might possibly hold an argument in accordance with the prohibited discrimination of religious faith.
- b) No the employer did not disregard the NB Human Rights act because of the reason that physical appearance does not come under one of the 14 bases for discrimination and Monique does not seem to be disagreeing that her nose ring has any religious motive.
3. A & B
a) Albert indeed has a good case for unlawful removal from office as there is no paper trace of any kind of disciplinary action which has been taken against him or any kind of negative reviews about him. Moreover, he was not even given any notice. Albert would have been authorized to the get the following remunerations even if a cause for his sacking might have existed: pay for the obligatory notice period; financial reimbursement to cover the job market feature, duration of employment along with age; as well as job placement/career counseling.
Nevertheless, as Albert is not unionized, he will not be considered back again for his earlier job position. The compensation according to the common law is as mentioned above.
b) The common law duty that rests with Albert is his honest and sincere effort to find a different job in order to alleviate his financial damage during the tenure of his unemployment, and also the loss of his employer for reimbursing Albert. Or else, the judge may limit the compensation paid to Albert’ up to 50% if it appears that Albert had not made any kind of genuine attempt for finding a new job. As long as Albert continues to actively seek a new employment opportunity while maintaining a record of such genuine efforts, i.e. visits to various organizations offering employment, phone calls to recruiters/ consultants, participation in career fairs, number of resumes circulated in the job market, this will be adequate evidence to prove that Albert had performed his common law duty without fail.