




Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Sample questions with correct answers.
Typology: Exams
1 / 8
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
SAMPLE QUESTIONS for EMPLOYMENT LAW EXAMS
Data Masters is a large privately held company that conducts business in multiple locations in the Greater Toronto Area. Its annual payroll is $12 million. Data Masters recently lost a significant customer and has taken 2 cost-saving measures: it eliminated a non essential position, and it decided to temporarily lay off the employees in the data service department at the company’s Dundas Square location/ The department employed 60 people whose lengths of service ranged from 2 to 4 years. Evan is the employee whose position has been eliminated. He was asked to leave immediately and was assured that Data Masters would meet all requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000. He has also been advised that he may be eligible for severance pay under the Act. Evan had been employed continuously by Data Masters for 12 years, receiving an annual salary of $40,000 and 2 weeks’ annual vacation/ He also participated in a comprehensive benefits plan that included short- and long-term disability benefits, health and dental coverage, and life insurance. The benefits plan is provided by a third-party insurance company. Data Masters pays 100% of the premiums associated with the plan. Data Masters employs 10 people in Evan’s role- Evan is the only one whose position was eliminated/
Questions S1 to S5 refer to Case 1
a. Yes, because he was employed for more than 5 years in a company whose payroll is greater than $2.5 million. b. Yes, because he was employed for more than 10 years in a non-supervisory role. c. Yes, because he was employed for more than 10 years in a company whose payroll is greater than $5 million.
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/” ertain hourly employees participate in the company’s time off in lieu of overtime banking program/ !ll 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/
Questions S11 to S14 refer to Case 3