Scenario F Flashcards
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. Senior management is considering termination and asks whether any of the 3 employees involved could be justifiably terminated for cause. Who should Randy suggest could be terminated for cause? a) Gina b) Jordan c) Marcel
The answer is b. Jordan Functional Area: A1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. While this may be possible from a legal standpoint, the termination could be easily challenged as the company has failed to accommodate Gina in the first place. B is correct. Jordan has a high level of involvement in the incident and has endangered another employee while operating his machine in an unsafe manner. C is incorrect. In similar situations, the courts have been reluctant to terminate an employee with such involvement for cause, while recognizing that their involvement certainly warrants discipline and may warrant termination without cause.
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. EZ Home and Hearth aims to foster a safe working environment, where incidents such as this one should not occur. How should this incident be characterized? a) As a failure on the part of management and supervisors to properly supervise the employees. b) As a failure on the part of the employees to follow direction and do their part to contribute to a safe working environment. c) As a failure on the part of the store and management to properly accommodate an employee with a disability
The answer is c. As a failure on the part of the store and management to properly accommodate an employee with a disability. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. While Marcel, the general manager, should have been firmer with the employees involved and done more to discourage the unsafe act, this fact does not address the underlying issue, which is a failure to accommodate. B is incorrect. Employees do have a duty to do their part to contribute to a safe working environment, but the OHSA places the greater part of that burden on the employer and the supervisors they appoint. C is correct. Had the store taken steps to accommodate Gina in a dignified manner from the outset, this situation would not have arisen in the first place. As this is the root of the incident, it would be prudent to devote considerable effort to new methods of accommodation to ensure this does not happen again.
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. To prevent similar incidents in the future, what should Randy suggest to Marcel that he do differently next time? a) Ensure he is more precise when responding to employee queries. b) Hold training sessions in an area accessible by all employees, including those with disabilities. c) Rent a scissor lift to elevate Gina up to the training session safely.
The answer is b. Hold training sessions in an area accessible by all employees, including those with disabilities. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. While more clarity from Marcel may have prevented this particular incident, it does not alleviate the underlying issue that the training session was not accessible for employees with disabilities. B is correct. HR should always accommodate employees with disabilities, as soon as HR is made aware that the employee requires accommodation. C is incorrect. This does not resolve the underlying issue of workplace accommodation for employees with disabilities.
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. Randy advises senior management that EZ Home and Hearth must accommodate Gina’s disability. If the company is concerned with the additional requirements, what could it claim to limit its obligation? a) The financial cost of accommodation would be unreasonable. b) The accommodations would result in undue hardship. c) The company’s employment contracts do not stipulate the employer’s duty to accommodate employees.
The answer is b. The accommodations would result in undue hardship. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Cost is a factor relevant in determining whether there is undue hardship. B is correct. Employees with liabilities must be accommodated unless doing so would constitute undue hardship. C is incorrect. Human Rights Codes are implied into employment contracts; there is no way to contract out of them.
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. Gina is concerned about her job after the incident and wants to ensure she is protected from discrimination based on her disability. What legislation would apply to Gina? a) Ontario’s Human Rights Code b) Canadian Human Rights Act c) Canada Labour Code
The answer is a. Ontario’s Human Rights Code Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is correct. As an employee working only in Ontario, Gina is covered by the Ontario Code. B is incorrect. There is no information to suggest that her store is involved in a federal undertaking delineated under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, which means she is governed by provincial legislation. C is incorrect. This legislation does not apply to Gina as a non-union provincial employee.
Randy is a senior HR manager with EZ Home and Hearth, a do-it-yourself retailer with stores across Canada. Senior management has approached Randy about an incident that recently took place in one of the non-unionized stores in Toronto. Randy learns the store was conducting a training and development exercise for its managerial staff. The training took place in a meeting room on the second storey of the building, which was not accessible to employees with restricted mobility. One of the managerial staff, Gina, has limited mobility and uses a motorized scooter. Gina asked one of her co-workers, Jordan, if he could raise her up to the second floor using the store’s forklift so that she could attend the session. When Gina and Jordan told Marcel, the store’s general manager, about their plan, Marcel told them he did not think it was a good idea, although he did not explicitly forbid it. Gina and Jordan went ahead anyway, and Gina was successfully raised up to the second floor and then lowered back down after the session using the forklift. However, several customers observed it and mentioned it to another employee, who quickly contacted head office to report this breach of safety protocol. Senior management is concerned by the conduct of all 3 employees and asks Randy to advise on the best course of action. As part of addressing this incident, senior management asks Randy to review the company’s policies related to hiring, accommodation, and discrimination prevention. Which of the following hiring policies should Randy advise would most likely be considered discriminatory? a) The use of bona fide occupational requirements. b) The implementation of affirmative action programs. c) The requirement of a physical fitness test for all positions.
The answer is c. The requirement of a physical fitness test for all positions. Functional Area: B1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. This is a permitted exemption. B is incorrect. Affirmative action programs are exempt. C is correct. Applying a physical fitness test to all positions may raise discrimination concerns because these could result in claims of adverse effect discrimination.
