Problem1
Introduction
The presented scenario revolves around two distinct employment situations at separate establishments, each posing unique legal challenges. Student baker Tyra Rye of Perth, Ontario’s Golden Loaf, may face employment and wage rights issues. Tyra created various bakery recipes, including a famous bread. In the interview, she said trainees are unpaid, but we don’t know her job. When Buck Wheat is a contractor and delivery driver, things get complicated. His ownership holdings and contractual details make this important (Taylor, 2020). Ottawa’s Kettle Bells Club’s Equipment Maintenance Person (EMP) hiring process has been criticized for handicap, family, and political bias. Read and understand all employment laws, including those that ban hiring discrimination, require apprenticeships, or require independent contractors. This paper extensively analyzes these two cases to outline the many legal issues.
Identification of Legal Issues
The first legal issue centres around Tyra Rye’s employment status as a trainee baker at Golden Loaf Bakery. Despite being told at the interview that trainees are unpaid, we wonder if she is employed. The Ontario Employment Standards Act defines employment under certain conditions. Training employees are usually considered employees by law if they work hard for the company, even if they earn less. Tyra seems more interested in bakery management than accepting orders. She must create recipes and other tasks like other cooks. My initial questions were whether Tyra’s internship was free and if she could get a benefit plan. Tyra’s job, supervision, and reason for working at Golden Loaf Bakery are variables (Taylor, 2020). Buck Wheat is self-employed; therefore, calling him an team member is prohibited. Buck delivers with his own vehicle despite working for Golden Loaf Bakery, following their agreement. The bakery offers him bread-carrying gear and requires him to distribute deliveries in branded attire. Buck’s needs and order delivery are bakery priorities. The ESA states that various factors determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor in Ontario. These include worker participation in corporate operations, financial risk-taking, and employer management. Buck should be an employee, not freelancer. He can choose his schedule and transportation, but Golden Loaf Bakery is powerful. Finally, Dina Bun, the bakery’s HR manager, is reviewing Tyra and Buck’s service contracts. Dina should review Tyra’s unpaid internship contract and Buck’s independent contractor contract for employment standards compliance and avoid misclassification or violations. Dina must also confirm Tyra’s traineeship agreement meets ESA uncompensated training standards. If her duties surpass those of a trainee, Tyra’s job description may need to be amended to comply with employment rules and resolve claims for underpaid benefits and income. Dina should check Buck’s contractor agreement to see if he works for the bakery or independently. To avoid risks and comply with employment regulations, Buck’s contract may need to be modified if it misrepresents his tasks or the bakery’s control.
Applicable Legal Principles
Employment standards legislation in Ontario, such as the Employment Standards Act (ESA), establishes the minimum standards for wages, working conditions, and other employment-related matters. The Ontario Employment Criteria Act (ESA) specifies minimum wages, working conditions, and other employment requirements. A trainee must meet ESA requirements to be excluded from remuneration during training. People think traineeships are paid internships that give students field experience. The ESA defines a trainee as a qualified student in an authorized business, vocational, or college program (Grant et al., 2023). A company can acquire a pay exemption if its training program optimizes student benefit and doesn’t quickly turn workers into profits. Subject-matter experts without available roles must supervise trainees. Tyra Rye’s Golden Loaf bakery trainee job may meet ESA standards. Tyra may learn bakery skills. Making recipes and completing other baking duties suggests she’s not just studying. Tyra may be compensated if her education doesn’t qualify for the ESA’s income exemption.
Employee or independent contractor status influences pay, benefits, and employment rights. Ontario contractors’ status can be determined under the ESA and common law. Although independent contractors have greater freedom and flexibility at work, their classification depends on their boss’s authority, how integrated their labor is into the boss’s business, and their financial risk. An ESA employee must meet specific requirements. The worker’s ability to make or lose money, the expense of tools and equipment, and the employer’s control determine whether they are independent contractors (Grant et al., 2023). Classification may depend on the parties’ exclusivity and the employee’s importance to the employer. His business management, delivery van ownership, and delivery independence determine whether Buck Wheat is an independent contractor. Even though Buck drives and chooses his delivery schedule, the bakery controls his distribution strategy and equipment, limiting his work autonomy. Buck may qualify for employee benefits and protections despite not being an ESA independent worker.
Employment contracts are legal agreements between employers and workers. Job duties, hours, and compensation are listed. Contract parties have rights and responsibilities under common law and employment standards. Employment contracts may need to be altered to reduce legal risks and promote compliance. This is especially true if contracts violate employee rights or laws. To comply with employment rules and limit responsibility, Dina Bun, the bakery’s HR manager, should evaluate Tyra and Buck’s contracts. Tyra may need to change her traineeship agreement if it doesn’t clearly specify her tasks or ESA exclusions to satisfy legal obligations and address unpaid wages or benefits claims. Buck may need to change his contractor agreement to clarify his bakery relationship to comply with employment rules and decrease his legal risk.
Analysis
Tyra Rye’s Golden Loaf Bakery compensation is suspicious. Pay exemption for traineeships, usually unpaid learning programs, is set under the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA). Tyra appears to be baking and creating recipes in addition to teaching. Tyra’s income depends on her major duty at Golden Loaf, her tasks, and the bakery’s management. Tyra can get internship money without ESA pay exemption (Grant et al., 2023). Tyra may have various training and duties. Modifications may be needed to comply with employment rules and pay underpaid benefits or claims.
Many question if Buck Wheat was tricked into thinking he was employed. They want to know how it will influence his corporate benefits and protections. Buck has his own delivery car and chooses his own schedule, but the bakery controls his timetable and equipment, making him seem like an employee under Ontario’s ESA. Classifying Buck requires considering his bakery ownership, management, and finances (Grant et al., 2023). Buck may qualify for employee benefits and protections despite not being an ESA independent worker. Buck’s contract and bakery work may need to be harmonized to avoid misclassification lawsuits and employment laws.
After leaving Golden Loaf Bakery, assistant baker Marty Hobby’s unjust termination claim lacks credibility. Ontario workers are entitled to notice or compensation under the ESA if fired for a reasonable reason. Marty’s claim must be verified by reviewing his termination and the bakery’s reasons (Lynk, 2020). If Marty was fired for poor performance or inappropriate behavior or was compensated instead of warned, his claim that he was unjustly fired can be sustained. Marty’s claim may require the termination contract or rules. By investigating Marty’s dismissal, the bakery can avoid court and resolve his unjust dismissal action.
Conclusion
Marty Hobby’s termination, Buck Wheat’s independent contractor position, and Tyra Rye’s internship demonstrate the risks of ignoring employment and contractual constraints. Employers must examine these legal concerns and settle disputes to reduce legal risks, assure compliance, and protect employee rights and benefits under employment standards legislation. Keep employees happy and out of court by following best practices for resolving employment contracts and issues.
Problem 2:
Introduction
Kettle Bells, a small weigh-lifting gym in Ottawa, recently initiated a hiring process for an Equipment Maintenance Person (EMP) due to the need for daily disinfection of the gym equipment. The EMP must clean bars, kettlebells, and free weights before returning them to the facility. Due of the job’s physical demands, the EMP after-hiring process carefully examined applicants’ backgrounds, skills, and suitability. Kettle Bells presumably interviewed each candidate after analyzing resumes to find the greatest fit. Fay Strong, Kettle Bells’ HR manager, chose the best candidate from 10 based on availability, experience, and appearance. But three applicants filed human rights claims of employment discrimination, complicating proceedings. This introduction will discuss Kettle Bells’ EMP recruitment legal issues (Lynk, 2020). The discrimination allegations’ history and hiring criteria may illuminate the employer’s defense and candidates’ assessments. This study will also investigate laws that ban race, religion, national origin, and disability employment discrimination and mandate accommodations.
Identification of Legal Issues
Disability, political, and family hiring discrimination is the main issue. Job discrimination based on disability, politics, or family is illegal under the HRC. When a company mistreats its employees based on these protected characteristics, it discriminates. Fay Strong, Kettle Bells HR manager, handled three candidates who claimed hiring discrimination. The first EMP applicant was denied because Fay claimed her left knee arthritis precluded her from doing the physically hard work. She was barely partially considered for the post, and some believed her qualifications were unfairly assessed. This may be disability discrimination. Kettle Bells owner Mario disliked the second candidate’s strong politics (Lynk, 2020). AL campaigns are in their past. Politics should not be used to discriminate, says the HRC. Mario may have rejected the candidacy due to political bias. Finally, Fay hired a male EMP candidate with no experience because he was connected to a Kettle Bells employee, prompting familial prejudice concerns. Fay’s employing a cousin of an employee over more qualified applicants based on their lack of ties to current employees may have been discriminatory.
Applicable Legal Principles
The Ontario HRC is crucial to fighting job discrimination. Identity and origin should not discriminate against anyone, argues the Human Rights Council. Supervisors who discriminate against protected groups are guilty of workplace discrimination. Employers should not discriminate against human rights abusers and provide all applicants a fair shot. To restate, candidates should be assessed on their relevant skills and job history, not subjective considerations. Three Kettle Bells employees face disability, political, and family discrimination charges. These claims are addressed by human rights laws. Joint pain, Animal Liberation Party, and family connections were candidate rejections. Human Rights Campaign describes this as unfair discrimination. To comply with human rights laws, businesses must hire without bias. We must avoid human rights-violating hiring practices and adopt job-appropriate criteria. Failure to meet these rules may result in discrimination litigation against the company (Lynk, 2020). Disability discrimination is illegal and disabled workers must be accommodated. Employers must make reasonable hiring adjustments for disabled workers to remove barriers and give equitable employment opportunities. Companies must accommodate disabled workers under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Disabled workers may need job description or workplace changes. Work schedules, duties, and assistance equipment may need to be adjusted for impaired people. An arthritic candidate was rejected, raising questions about Kettle Bells’ disability accommodations. If the employer is flexible with arthritic accommodations, the applicant may be able to complete the required EMP duties. Businesses must accommodate disabled workers and evaluate their performance. A company that doesn’t accommodate disabled people may breach human rights laws.
Analysis
To prove prejudice, examine each applicant’s application and the employer’s decision. First candidate, who has left knee arthritis, alleges she was rejected because an employer didn’t like her physical abilities. Because of her illness, she claims unfair treatment. The Human Rights Code (HRC) requires Ontario employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled applicants and employees unless it is impracticable. Disability discrimination is suspected in the HR manager’s rejection of the applicant without a thorough assessment of their abilities and appropriate adjustments. The second applicant blames politics for his unemployment. Animal Liberation Party membership is to blame. According to the HRC, employers cannot discriminate based on politics. Mario rejected the job candidate based on politics rather than competence, which may have been unfair competition (Lynk, 2020). Another applicant claims he was rejected because he did not know a current employee. This is unfair family discrimination, he says. Recruiting relatives of current employees is permissible, although it may appear biased to unhired candidates.
Review employer explanations to determine legality and fairness of employment decisions. The HR manager may say that the first candidate was rejected because she had arthritis and worried about the job’s physical demands. To support this choice, the employer must show that they carefully assessed the candidate’s skills and abilities and evaluated how reasonable changes could improve her performance. Like the first application, the hiring manager may have rejected the second for qualifications. If the boss’s political views were the only consideration, the HRC may charge him with discrimination. The final contender is an employee’s relative. Company may claim they hired relative for skills and expertise, not family ties. If accused of discrimination, the supervisor may difficult to defend the family-based decision.
Conclusion
After reviewing the employer’s reasoning for hiring particular candidates and the applicants’ discrimination accusations, the need of complying with human rights norms and making reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals became clear. The law requires employers to hire based on qualifications, competence, and job performance, not politics, family, or disability. The corporation must comply with these regulations to avoid discrimination claims. Thus, corporations must follow specific, objective human rights regulations and avoid employment discrimination.
References
Grant, I., Benedet, J., Sheehy, E., & Frazee, C. (2023). A Conversation on Feminism, Ableism, and Medical Assistance in Dying. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, e2023Grant3.
Lynk, M. (2020). Academic Freedom, Canadian Labour Law and the Scope of Intra-Mural Expression. Const. F., 29, 45.
McKay-Panos, L. (2023). Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Protect Academic Freedom at Universities?. Canadian Lab. & Emp. LJ, 25, 185.
Taylor, A. (2020). A Creative Interpretation: A comparative study of statutory discrimination law.
write