当前位置:天才代写 > 原创论文 > 劳动法案例分析 法律案例分析

劳动法案例分析 法律案例分析

2021-07-19 11:49 星期一 所属: 原创论文 浏览:471

Case Study

Name

Institution

劳动法案例分析 The case of contractual employment between Cynthia and Karen brings about the employment dilemma to the employer about the status

What is The Legal Relevance of Showing That Karen’s Duties/Responsibilities are The Same As Those of Her Peers and Other Team Members with Which She Must Work? 劳动法案例分析

The case of contractual employment between Cynthia and Karen brings about the employment dilemma to the employer about the status of Karen in the company. Under the Employment and Labor Laws, every employee otherwise not exempted from the federal minimum wage. And overtime pay is entitled to the employment benefits (“International Comparative Legal Guides,” 2018). Furthermore, every employee is allowed to have defined duties and responsibilities which measures and give the scope of his/her work. The legal relevance of determining the duties and responsibilities is to make sure the employee get the fair share of wages and benefits.劳动法案例分析

劳动法案例分析
劳动法案例分析

In the case of Cynthia and Karen claiming entitlement to benefits, put the company at the legal and labor managemen dilemma which must be solved. Certain factors have to be considered to get the employment facts as per the employment laws which help determine whether Karen is entitled to employment benefits (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). First, the terms of her contract with the utility.


译文:

证明 Karen 的职责/责任与她必须与之一起工作的同事和其他团队成员的职责/责任相同有什么法律相关性? 劳动法案例分析

辛西娅和凯伦之间的合同雇佣案给雇主带来了关于凯伦在公司中的地位的雇佣困境。根据《就业和劳工法》,每位雇员均不得免除联邦最低工资。加班费享有就业福利(“国际比较法律指南”,2018 年)。此外,允许每个员工都有明确的职责和责任,以衡量和给出他/她的工作范围。确定职责和责任的法律相关性是确保员工获得公平的工资和福利份额。

在 Cynthia 和 Karen 要求享受福利的情况下,将公司置于必须解决的法律和劳动管理两难境地。根据就业法,必须考虑某些因素才能获得就业事实,这有助于确定 Karen 是否有权获得就业福利(Bennett-Alexander & Hartman,2015 年)。首先,她与公用事业公司的合同条款。


According to the case, the contract state that. 劳动法案例分析

Karen was working as a Human Resource Temporary which later transformed to Human Resource Consultant. As it was a temporary contract, she was not entitled to benefits like other workers as she was not the permanent employee of the company. Karen was subject the temporary contract signed with the company (Lieberman, 2017). Furthermore, during the period of her contract, Karen did not sign W-2 which shows her remittance of tax from the current employment. For the record, Karen was not the employee of Cynthia’s company.劳动法案例分析

Additionally, the implication of Karen’s position in the company was wrong and went against the provision of the employment and labor law. That each employee is supposed to have a defined scope of duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the legal relevance of showing Karen her duties as they apply to her peer is to determine the wages and benefits which must also be similar to those of her peers. Legally, when such responsibilities are defined the work benefits to her peers also apply to her. However, in this case, there was no clear definition of the work scope which shows that she had similar duties as her peers which makes determining the wage and benefits difficult.

Moreover, the case against the ABC Utility to the Internal Revenue Service may not be legally actionable. As she did not sign W-2 for the tax remittance from the current contract. Also, the absence of the defined scope of duties and responsibilities like any other workmate exempt her from getting the work benefits. Therefore, it was legally significant for the ABC Utility company to define the scope of Karen’s duties. As the same to that of her peers to enable her share in the company’s employment benefits.


译文:

根据本案,合同规定。 劳动法案例分析

Karen 是一名人力资源临时工,后来转变为人力资源顾问。由于是临时合同,她不是公司的正式员工,因此不能像其他工人一样享受福利。 Karen 受制于与公司签订的临时合同(Lieberman,2017)。此外,在她的合同期间,Karen 没有签署 W-2 来显示她从当前工作中汇出的税款。根据记录,Karen 不是 Cynthia 公司的员工。

此外,凯伦在公司职位的含义是错误的,违反了就业和劳动法的规定。每个员工都应该有明确的职责范围。因此,向 Karen 展示适用于她的同龄人的职责的法律相关性是确定工资和福利,这也必须与她的同龄人相似。从法律上讲,当定义了这些责任时,她的同龄人的工作利益也适用于她。然而,在本案中,并没有明确的工作范围定义,表明她与同龄人的职责相似,这使得确定工资和福利变得困难。

此外,针对美国国税局 ABC 公用事业公司的案件可能无法在法律上提起诉讼。因为她没有为当前合同中的税款汇款签署 W-2。此外,与任何其他同事一样,由于没有明确的职责范围,她无法获得工作福利。因此,ABC 公用事业公司界定 Karen 的职责范围具有法律意义。与她的同龄人一样,使她能够分享公司的就业福利。


References 劳动法案例分析

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2015). Employment Law for Business (8 ed.). New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Education.

International Comparative Legal Guides. (2018). Employment and Labor Laws 2018 | USA. Retrieved from https://iclg.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/usa

Lieberman, R. D. (2017). How to get paid for wage determination increases in options and extensions under the service contract act. Retrieved from http://publiccontractinginstitute.com/how-to-get-paid-for-wage-determination-increases-in-options-and-extensions-under-the-service-contract-act/

劳动法案例分析
劳动法案例分析

其他代写:代写CS C++代写 java代写 r代写 金融经济统计代写 matlab代写 web代写 app代写 物理代写 数学代写 考试助攻 analysis代写

合作平台:essay代写 论文代写 写手招聘 英国留学生代写

 

天才代写-代写联系方式