A cookie company's management wants to increase the number of employees belonging to minority groups.They implement a policy determining that a fixed percentage of recruits should be members of groups Which legal constraint is breached by this decision?.A) infringing upon the majority employee's right,b) minimizing intrusion into expectations, c)setting aside positions,D) attaining a balanced workforce IS A CORRECT ANSWER ,THANK YOU
9 answers
I agree.
THANK YOU,I still have one question which i don't understand maybe you can help me ;
2. Reah filed a case against her employer who dismissed her from service for reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. Which of these would be valid reason to contest the dismissal?
a.)Reah's employer had not listed reporting to work after consuming alcohol as
one of the grounds for dismissal.
b.)The process of dismissal that the company followed as a policy was not
sufficient to protect employees against arbitrary decisions.
c.)The act of reporting to work under the influence of alcohol, for which Reah
was dismissed, though not positive, cannot be classified as a just cause.
d.)Reah's employers had not followed the process of dismissal as stated in the
company's human resources policy documen
2. Reah filed a case against her employer who dismissed her from service for reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. Which of these would be valid reason to contest the dismissal?
a.)Reah's employer had not listed reporting to work after consuming alcohol as
one of the grounds for dismissal.
b.)The process of dismissal that the company followed as a policy was not
sufficient to protect employees against arbitrary decisions.
c.)The act of reporting to work under the influence of alcohol, for which Reah
was dismissed, though not positive, cannot be classified as a just cause.
d.)Reah's employers had not followed the process of dismissal as stated in the
company's human resources policy documen
I think all of those answers could be possible. We simply don't have enough information to make a knowledgeable judgment.
My best guess is that a) is the required answer.
My best guess is that a) is the required answer.
THANK YOU SO MUCH:)
Either a or d. I've known people who were unremoveable because their supervisors didn't follow the process correctly or completely.
I've had the same experience with d as Writeacher.
You're very welcome.
You're very welcome.
I would go with d, if there are policy procedures, they must be followed, otherwise, due process is nullified.
Reah filed a case against her employer who dismissed her for being under the influence of alcohol. what would be a valid reason to contest
I think the answer is D. A seemed like it could be an option but after thinking about it I came to the conclusion that they aren't any jobs where you are supposed to work under the influence
4 answers