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
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
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.
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.
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
The legal constraint breached by this decision is option D) attaining a balanced workforce.
To arrive at this answer, let's break down the options and analyze them:
Option A) Infringing upon the majority employee's right: This option is not relevant to the given scenario because the decision does not mention anything about infringing upon the rights of the majority employees.
Option B) Minimizing intrusion into expectations: This option is not the correct answer because the decision does not explicitly mention anything about minimizing intrusion into expectations.
Option C) Setting aside positions: This option is also not the correct answer because the decision does not mention anything about setting aside positions specifically.
Option D) Attaining a balanced workforce: This is the correct answer because the decision mentions implementing a policy to increase the number of employees belonging to minority groups. By specifically targeting a fixed percentage of recruits from these groups, the management is attempting to achieve demographic representation or balance within the workforce. This breaches the legal constraint of attaining a balanced workforce because it prioritizes recruiting employees based on their minority status rather than solely on their qualifications or merit.