HRPD 706 - Analysis of Tagg Industries v. Rieder Employment Case

This case study analyzes the Ontario Supreme Court case of Tagg Industries v. Rieder, focusing on key facts, issues, and the relevant areas of Human Resource Management (HRM). The case revolves around a dispute between Tagg Industries and its former employee, Otto Reider, concerning the terms of his employment contract, specifically the one-month notice period for termination and the bonus entitlement. The analysis highlights the importance of adhering to recruitment and remuneration policies, emphasizing that non-compliance with agreed-upon terms can lead to legal challenges and damage a company's reputation. The conclusion underscores the legal obligation of organizations to comply with contract terms and the employee's right to seek legal recourse in cases of injustice. Desklib offers a wealth of resources, including solved assignments and past papers, for students seeking to deepen their understanding of similar legal cases and HRM principles.

BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
F: HRM......................................................................................................................................1
H: Conclusion.............................................................................................................................2
References..................................................................................................................................3

F: HRM
The areas of HRM (Human resource management) or HR policies which significantly affect
the case are recruitment and remuneration policies. The main objective of recruitment policy
is to assure the transparent and appropriate hiring process so that HR department can choose
the right candidate in accordance with the job (Schaltegger, Burritt and Petersen, 2017). In
present case, recruitment policy is the main evidence in hand of defendant Otto Reider as it
was specified in the agreement of service that one month notice will be given prior to notice
of termination and same was not provided by the company. Further, the issue relating to
bonus which is part of remuneration policy is also one of the main issues as Reider want to
set off the loan of $40000 against the bonus which was receivable to him amounting to
$40000. Kirton and Trebilcock (2017), asserts that remuneration and benefits (comprising
bonus) are also referred as compensation program which is significant part of HRM function.
The same should be applied as an effective tool for utilization of management of human
resources in order to attain organizational objectives. HRM develops remuneration policies
on salaries as well as other benefits with a motive of keeping their organization in line with
existing market place competitiveness as well as for encouraging the employees (Brewster
and et.al. 2016)
In present case it can be assessed that Tagg Industries have not followed its recruitment as
well as remuneration policies. As it was specified in the employment contract to provide one
month prior notice of termination but same was not provided by the company. Moreover, in
case the employee is entitled to receive the bonus prior to the date on which period of one
month relating to notice ends than he is having legal right to claim the same and could be
offset against the loan. The main learning to be taken in future regarding HR policies relating
to present case is that non-compliance of terms on which organization had agreed at the time
of development of contract (recruitment or remuneration polices) could result in various
obstacles as well as negatively affect the image of company.

H: CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from decision of above case that termination of employee requires
genuine reason along with a prior notice of period which has been specified at the time of
recruitment of employee. The main learning from above analysis relating to recruitment
policy is that an organization is legally bound to comply with the terms of a contract. Further,
once the same has been specified in employment contract and accept by both parties
(employee and organization) it is to be complied on compulsory basis. Further, in case any
injustice has been faced by an employee due to inappropriate action of employer than he or
she is having legal right to sue the organization for specified action. Lastly, the onus of
proving the innocence is on employee that injustice had been done with him in order to claim
the damages.

REFERENCES
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., & Petersen, H. (2017). An introduction to corporate
environmental management: Striving for sustainability. Routledge. United States
Kirton, J. J., & Trebilcock, M. J. (2017). Hard choices, soft law: Voluntary standards in
global trade, environment and social governance. Routledge. United States
Brewster, C., Vernon, G., Sparrow, P., & Houldsworth, E. (2016). International human
resource management. Kogan Page Publishers. New York.