EMPLOYEE AND LABOUR RELATION

(HRP114)
CASE STUDY- SAFE PASSAGE TOLL
SUBMITTED TO: DR. DEEPAK SHARMA
GROUP 3 MEMBERS:
MANJOT KAUR (A00101960)
MANPREET KAUR (A00115545)
NIKU KAUR (A00117424)
NAVPREET KAUR (A00118393)
NEHA BEDI (A00121350)
OVERVIEW OF CASE

• Case of toll road company that represented by union.

• Launch new swiping method- biometric scanning system.
• Some employees not agree with this system because of discrimination and other
components.
MAIN THREE CUSTOMER SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
• Armand
• Bob
• Courtney
Responsibilities:
Issuing transponders
Collecting payments
 Accepting faxes
Provide services to customers
SWIPING SCANNING
Is there any discrimination in this situation?
IS THERE ANY DISCRIMINATION IN THIS SITUATION? IF SO,
WHAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION IS INVOLVED?

• Because of marital status, race, and faith, Human rights legislation forbids
discrimination.
• Age, disability, family status, and religion are four of the reasons of discrimination.
There is discrimination in the basis of religion, depending on this case study.

• The necessity for bio-metric screening sounds logical that it should be extended
fairly to all in general, but a closer look reveals that owing to their sincere
convictions, some people (in this case religious individuals) are disadvantaged.
CONTINUE…

• Indirect prejudice is demonstrated in the case report.

• After reading the case study, it shows that the workers believed they were
unlikely to comply with the requirement, and others felt it was unfair. As it has a
connection to their religious convictions, the demand for bio-metric screening is
contrary to the forbidden motives for religious discrimination.
•What is the
obligation of
the employer?
CONT.........
• Security should be a main concern
• Importance of confidentiality
• Information of issues
• Guidance to employees
• Significance of the new scanning system
• Respect for all religions
• Discipline policy is mandatory
• Motivation
• Employer should encourage to employees to involve in all activities
in the company.
IF THIS CASE PROCEEDED TO
HEARING
• Employee vs. company biometric scanning
• Security is a concern sense the company premises contain sensitive areas where
customer data and expensive equipment are stored.
• Employees denied the system.
• Changes were made to the system but still not acceptable by the workers, so
company proceeded with progressive discipline giants the resisting workers.
• Three workers were fired
CONT.......

• Workers responded through their union.

• The arbitrator addressed the sincerity of the workers and entitled to the protection
against the discrimination.
• Instead of trying to accommodate workers, company continued its attempts to
persuade them to enroll.
• Worker's refusal should have been treated as a significant human rights issue,
not a disciplinary matter
• Possible for the three workers to be entered in new security system.
• The company breached its duty to accommodate the workers.
• Decision was made that Armand, Bob, and Courtney should be reinstated to their jobs as
CSR without loss of earning and any salary lost since their termination should be paid.
THANK
YOU