2. Minott v. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd. [1999] O.J. No. 5 Facts: Timothy Minott, worked for 11 years in the maintenance department at O’Shatner Development Company Ltd. In November 1990, Minott took two days off work without permission and was suspended for two days. When Minott failed to report to work, after the two-day suspension, he was fired. He applied for unemployment insurance and a Board of Referees concluded that the Minott did not qualify for benefits because he was terminated due to his own misconduct. Minott qualified for benefits after three weeks. Minott sued O’Shatner for wrongful dismissal. O’Shatner made a motion to set aside the law suit and argued that the Board of Referees already decided that Minott’s misconduct
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
Mr. Milhauser was employed with Minco in 2006. Between 2007 and 2009 he served three military deployments. In 2008, Minco experienced a decline in orders continuing into 2009. Minco cut costs including delaying purchases, reducing overtime, and making pay cuts. Despite these measures, in March of 2009 Minco eliminated 18 positions. This process was not successful and did not abate the decline and it was determined that 32 more positional cuts would be made in June. These cuts were determined by job duties, technical expertise, with employee attitude and work ethic being considered; seniority not being a factor. On June 3, 2009, Mr. Milhauser was terminated as part of the cutbacks. He filed two claims, the first being Discrimination and the second, Failure to provide reemployment as required by the USERRA. His first claim denied, he appealed the second claim regarding the USERRA.
There was evidence shown that the unfair dismissal requirements were the furthermost conflicting and inconsistent from the manager’s perspective. The Fair Work Act applied unfair dismissal requirements for entirely workers, regardless of the population of workers in the business (Chapman, 2015). The Fair Work Act presents two cases that dismissal could be reasonable, including other dismissal and summary dismissal. In the first case, the law offers a sequence of stages such as concluded checklist, copies of notice, declaration of dismissal and a witness announcement with signature that managers must follow with the intention to reduce the problem (Chapman, 2015). In the second case, managers may dismiss a worker without notice due to theft or fraud. As the consequence, the amount of cases in relation to unfair dismissal has risen significantly since the Fair Work Act implemented as law. In addition to the growing records of cases in relation to unfair dismissal, the judgements from Fair Work Australia showed some contradicting clarifications of the Fair Work Act (Chapman, 2015). According to an example, a business in Albury- Wodonga had dismissed an employee due to the breach of occupational and safety laws after an employee continually denied to wear safety glasses at work (Sloan, 2011). However, after checking the worker’s reinstatement, the Fair Work Australia stated that the worker had a family and he has found it challenging to
Later after reporting the case White received a notice that her job as a folk lifter has been reassigned another male member and that she has been relocated from her current job station to more strenuous manual difficult tasks. The employee filed a new lawsuit with EEOC citing retaliation actions against her for reporting sexual discrimination acts g against her immediate supervisor. She also filed a second case alleging that her employer has fixed surveillance camera something that was against her privacy rights. The company later her for alleged subordination. White filed the third case against her employer claiming that her suspension and demotion misfortunes emanated from her resolve to protest against sexual discrimination practices. The sixth circuit court as well as the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff remedies and affirmed that the company’s
Maria DeSimone, 40 years old; wife and mother of two children of Palm Bay, Florida, was refused employment at the establishment in which she applied to. The circumstances surrounding the case were as follows. Ms. DeSimone possessed two years of previous restaurant experience, she applied for a position at Texas Roadhouse of Palm Bay to the manager of the facility. When she never heard back from the manager (who said he would get back to her); she happened to be discussing the situation with a friend; the friend told her that Texas Roadhouse had just hired her 19-year-old daughter to the position in which she had just applied for. Previously when she had not heard back from the manager about the position, he told her that “they weren’t hiring at this time” (Lee and Hymowitz,
In Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., the owner of a livestock feedlot, Spur Industries, and the developer of a retirement community, Webb Development, the feedlot was affecting the residents of the retirement community. The feedlot was affecting the retirement community by the smell of the manure and the infestation of flies. Webb Development sued for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. Some facts of the case are as follows. Farming started in the area as early as 1911. Later on, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities. Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. Webb Development (Plaintiff), began developing an urban area near the feedlots. Webb Development filed a complaint in 1967 stating that the approximately 1,300 lots were unfit for residential development because of how close the
Bleary understood the chain of command at U.S. Steel - he had navigated it appropriately and successfully in the past when questioning company decisions. His initial concerns were reasonable and voiced appropriately and was told it was a nonissue and to continue selling the product. He agreed to these directions initially, but later decided he did not accept his supervisor’s assurance that his concerns were unfounded. Instead, without evidence for concern, Bleary leveraged a personal relationship in order to bypass the chain of command and bring his concerns directly to Vice President Neckert. It is because of these inappropriate behaviors that Bleary was terminated. In Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (Florado 1976), Palmateer reported to police the possibility of current criminal activity of an employee of International Harvester Co.
This statement of position letter represents the position of Ace Glass Company (ACE), the respondent in the above listed case. Jim Bowersmithes (“claimant”), asserts that ACE terminated his employment (1) Based on his age; (2) Treated unequally compared to women. These charges are without merit, lack evidence to support his allegations of discrimination in any form and should be dismissed since (1) The claimant, has missed a total of 16 workdays for various reasons, including one no show/no call. (2) The claimant has missed three mandatory safety meetings during this time; (3) The claimant’s personnel file contains two written reprimands about his attendance, including failure to attend three mandatory safety meetings, the latest one states
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
The Supreme Court observed that the absence could have been treated as leave without pay. The workman might have been warned and fined. Court further said, “it is impossible to think that any reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this matter”.
Fletchers started their business in the construction sector in 1909. Timber weatherboard house in Dunedin, New Zealand was their first project and they built it. They remain the leading construction company in New Zealand until 2001. In late 2001, they change their name The Fletcher Building Company on the stock exchange of New Zealand. Their main office is in Penrose, Auckland. They have near 20,000 employees working for them. They are dealing with mainly six different sections of construction work, heavy and light both building products, panels, and laminates distribution in New Zealand; they also distribute construction products in Australia and constructing the new big buildings there.
The first article is about a wrongful termination case that occurred in 2008. This case involved and full-service contractor name Paul Blakeslee that worked for a company called; Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure. Blakeslee was overseeing over 40 representatives dealing with a $100+ million agreement to uphold offices at Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright in Alaska. When Blakeslee discovered that Shaw's Alaska venture supervisor claimed a third of an alternate privately owned business that was renting about $2 million in gear to Shaw, often without accepting any bids from competitors, he chose to write Shaw’s CEO a letter reporting the activity. “According to the lawsuit, Blakeslee said the project manager found out about the planned letter Blakeslee was writing to the company's CEO and threatened to lay him off” (Lorene Schaefer). The threat happened on a Friday and that following Monday, Blakeslee found out the company was ending his position, saying the reason was to save money.
“A fundamental implied term of any employment relationship is that the employer will treat the employee with civility, decency, respect, and dignity.” Pigletti, had made at least fifteen sexual harassment motions towards Wheelah, some of which can be testified to by fellow co-workers. Not only has the acts of Wheelah’s manager cause damage to her self-esteem, it has impeded on the way her fellow co-workers have reacted to her. By going through with the constructive dismissal lawsuit, Sheila Wheelah is able to claim multiple damages, which would provide financial help whilst looking for new employment. It is clear that the actions by Pigeltti, as expressed by Honourable Mr. Justice J.D.B. McDonald, Pigletti failed to treat Wheelah “with civility, decency, respect, and dignity, to which she was entitled. Accordingly, I hold that she was constructively dismissed from her employment” Under these conditions, Wheelah is entitled to her base monthly salary for 3 months, which sums to approximately
The company in this case, Edaran Communication SB has an effective human resources management where the complaint board does not only cover clerical workers and officers but cover the cleaners who are not permanent workers in the company. The victims had made complaints to the board and according to the Company Sixth Witness (C6W), they had called the accused for investigation process. The accused then denied the allegation, and the company asked him to provide a written replied to deny the allegation made but he failed to do so. Later, the company disciplinary board found him guilty for the charges alleged based on evidences provided and he was dismissed. He claimed that the dismissal was unlawful.
I woke up one day and the top part of my left arm was purple and the bottom part of it had red blotches all over it. I was already seeing a specialist for my arm. So I had called the doctor and he said he wanted to see me that day. When I went in he said “I wasn’t getting any circulation to the bottom part of my arm and my hand and that I needed surgery right away or I was going to lose my arm.” I went in on a Tuesday he had me in for surgery that Friday. The same day I went to the doctor to be released back to work. I had received a letter telling me that I was fired. I called the human resource department and the gentleman I spoke with told me that he didn’t know why I got fired, and that he hadn’t had a chance to go over everything. The following week I called back up and got the same response from him. This happened in September of 2013 and I had just recently found out why I was fired. I was told that I was fired because I had taken a bit out of something before I paid for it. They had me on camera paying for it, but just because I had taken a bit out of it first, they let me