Scenario Z Flashcards
Pups & Kits Inc. is a company that manufactures dog and cat food in Sudbury, Ontario. The company advertises in a trade publication for a day shift manager. Five employees working on the production line would report to the successful candidate, who would be independently responsible for supervising their work, including their schedules, discipline, overtime, vacation scheduling, and bonus eligibility. The day shift manager would occasionally perform the same work as the workers who report to him or her, but this would happen only rarely. Matias applies for the position and completes the company’s standard application form. One of the questions is, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?” Matias answers “no” and certifies, by his signature, that this information is accurate and complete. An interview is scheduled for Matias with Donna, the manager of HR. The interview goes well and Pups & Kits makes an offer of employment to Matias. The offer requires that Matias consent to the company conducting a criminal records check. Matias consents. However, the criminal records check will not be completed before Matias starts work for the company; the process can take up to 4 months. Matias is expected to start work in 10 days. The offer of employment contains a comprehensive termination provision: “The company may terminate your employment, at any time and without notice, for just cause. In the absence of just cause, the company may terminate your employment on 72 hours’ notice or base salary in lieu of such notice, which will represent the entire, complete, and total obligation owed to you by the company and you will have no claims or further entitlements against the company.” Certain hourly employees participate in the company’s time off in lieu of overtime banking program. All hours the employee works in excess of 44 hours in a week are put into the bank at straight time. This has been the company’s policy for many years and employees are not asked to agree to this, in writing or otherwise. As a salaried employee, Matias does not participate in the company’s overtime banking program. Four months after Matias starts working at the company, Donna receives the results of his criminal background check. It reveals that 5 years before being hired, Matias had been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon had not been granted. Following receipt of this information, the plant manager approached Donna to ask for her recommendation. What should Donna advise? a. Terminate Matias’s employment for just cause because he was convicted of a criminal offence. b. Terminate Matias’s employment for just cause because he falsified his employment application. c. Contact the police to obtain further details about the crime for which Matias was convicted before addressing the matter with him and planning a course of action.
Correct answer is B: Terminate Matias’s employment for just cause because he falsified his employment application. Matias falsified his application for employment and this has been found to be just cause for termination. Based on the contextual approach, Matias’ employment should be terminated for just cause.
Pups & Kits Inc. is a company that manufactures dog and cat food in Sudbury, Ontario. The company advertises in a trade publication for a day shift manager. Five employees working on the production line would report to the successful candidate, who would be independently responsible for supervising their work, including their schedules, discipline, overtime, vacation scheduling, and bonus eligibility. The day shift manager would occasionally perform the same work as the workers who report to him or her, but this would happen only rarely. Matias applies for the position and completes the company’s standard application form. One of the questions is, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?” Matias answers “no” and certifies, by his signature, that this information is accurate and complete. An interview is scheduled for Matias with Donna, the manager of HR. The interview goes well and Pups & Kits makes an offer of employment to Matias. The offer requires that Matias consent to the company conducting a criminal records check. Matias consents. However, the criminal records check will not be completed before Matias starts work for the company; the process can take up to 4 months. Matias is expected to start work in 10 days. The offer of employment contains a comprehensive termination provision: “The company may terminate your employment, at any time and without notice, for just cause. In the absence of just cause, the company may terminate your employment on 72 hours’ notice or base salary in lieu of such notice, which will represent the entire, complete, and total obligation owed to you by the company and you will have no claims or further entitlements against the company.” Certain hourly employees participate in the company’s time off in lieu of overtime banking program. All hours the employee works in excess of 44 hours in a week are put into the bank at straight time. This has been the company’s policy for many years and employees are not asked to agree to this, in writing or otherwise. As a salaried employee, Matias does not participate in the company’s overtime banking program. Although he has a criminal record, Matias has been a good employee for his 4 months of employment. The plant manager understands that it is necessary to terminate Matias’s employment, but he would like to do so without just cause and he would like to rely on the termination provision in the employment letter, which Matias agreed to, and pay him 72 hours’ pay in lieu of notice. The plant manager asks Donna for advice. What should Donna advise about the enforceability of the termination without just cause portion of contract? a. The clause is legally enforceable because the company gave him ample time to consider the contract and he agreed to it by signing and returning it to the company. b. The clause is legally enforceable because it complies with the minimum requirements in the Employment Standards Act, 2000. c. The clause is not enforceable because it does not comply with the minimum requirements in the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
Correct answer is C: The clause is not enforceable because it does not comply with the minimum requirements in the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The clause fails to comply with the minimum requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, regarding termination pay and benefits continuation.
Pups & Kits Inc. is a company that manufactures dog and cat food in Sudbury, Ontario. The company advertises in a trade publication for a day shift manager. Five employees working on the production line would report to the successful candidate, who would be independently responsible for supervising their work, including their schedules, discipline, overtime, vacation scheduling, and bonus eligibility. The day shift manager would occasionally perform the same work as the workers who report to him or her, but this would happen only rarely. Matias applies for the position and completes the company’s standard application form. One of the questions is, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?” Matias answers “no” and certifies, by his signature, that this information is accurate and complete. An interview is scheduled for Matias with Donna, the manager of HR. The interview goes well and Pups & Kits makes an offer of employment to Matias. The offer requires that Matias consent to the company conducting a criminal records check. Matias consents. However, the criminal records check will not be completed before Matias starts work for the company; the process can take up to 4 months. Matias is expected to start work in 10 days. The offer of employment contains a comprehensive termination provision: “The company may terminate your employment, at any time and without notice, for just cause. In the absence of just cause, the company may terminate your employment on 72 hours’ notice or base salary in lieu of such notice, which will represent the entire, complete, and total obligation owed to you by the company and you will have no claims or further entitlements against the company.” Certain hourly employees participate in the company’s time off in lieu of overtime banking program. All hours the employee works in excess of 44 hours in a week are put into the bank at straight time. This has been the company’s policy for many years and employees are not asked to agree to this, in writing or otherwise. As a salaried employee, Matias does not participate in the company’s overtime banking program. Donna is reviewing the company’s time off in lieu of pay overtime banking program. What concerns may she have, if any? a. There are no concerns with the program. It complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000. b. The program does not comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because the banking of hours should be at 1.5 times the overtime hours worked, not at straight time. c. The program should be amended to allow the employer to unilaterally require employees to participate in the banking program as a condition of their employment or continued employment.
Correct answer is B: The program does not comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because the banking of hours should be at 1.5 times the overtime hours worked, not at straight time. The Employment Standards Act, 2000, requires that overtime must be paid. A bank is possible with the written agreement of the employee. If an employee has agreed to bank overtime hours, he or she must be given 1½ hours of paid time off work for each hour of overtime worked.
Pups & Kits Inc. is a company that manufactures dog and cat food in Sudbury, Ontario. The company advertises in a trade publication for a day shift manager. Five employees working on the production line would report to the successful candidate, who would be independently responsible for supervising their work, including their schedules, discipline, overtime, vacation scheduling, and bonus eligibility. The day shift manager would occasionally perform the same work as the workers who report to him or her, but this would happen only rarely. Matias applies for the position and completes the company’s standard application form. One of the questions is, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?” Matias answers “no” and certifies, by his signature, that this information is accurate and complete. An interview is scheduled for Matias with Donna, the manager of HR. The interview goes well and Pups & Kits makes an offer of employment to Matias. The offer requires that Matias consent to the company conducting a criminal records check. Matias consents. However, the criminal records check will not be completed before Matias starts work for the company; the process can take up to 4 months. Matias is expected to start work in 10 days. The offer of employment contains a comprehensive termination provision: “The company may terminate your employment, at any time and without notice, for just cause. In the absence of just cause, the company may terminate your employment on 72 hours’ notice or base salary in lieu of such notice, which will represent the entire, complete, and total obligation owed to you by the company and you will have no claims or further entitlements against the company.” Certain hourly employees participate in the company’s time off in lieu of overtime banking program. All hours the employee works in excess of 44 hours in a week are put into the bank at straight time. This has been the company’s policy for many years and employees are not asked to agree to this, in writing or otherwise. As a salaried employee, Matias does not participate in the company’s overtime banking program. Following his termination, Matias contacts Donna and claims that he was wrongfully denied overtime pay. He says he is eligible to receive overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. On what basis might Donna argue that Matias is not eligible for overtime pay? a. Matias is a salaried employee and as such is not eligible for overtime. b. Matias is a manager and his title exempts him from overtime. c. Matias’s work is supervisory or managerial in character and he performs non-supervisory duties on an exceptional basis.
Correct answer is C Matias’s work is supervisory or managerial in character and he performs non-supervisory duties on an exceptional basis. The Company would maintain that Matias’ job duties exempt him on the basis set out in this answer.
