Jim and Emmanuel were engineers with a mining company that frequently sent employees to

remote job sites for long periods of time while new properties were being developed. Because

of the time employees were required to stay at the remote sites, the company paid its

employees extremely well and attracted a large number of unmarried young men to both its

professional and labouring positions.

The company had discovered, however, that it had difficulty attracting and keeping more senior

and experienced personnel at the job sites. These employees were always in demand for the

supervisory tasks and inevitable problems that required the expertise of experienced

professionals. After discovering that one of the main factors that discouraged senior employees

from accepting such positions was their reluctance to be absent from their families. The

company offered to pay all costs of a return flight home once each month for married staff at

remote sites.

When Jim and Emmanuel were interviewed for positions with the company, they were told of

this policy for married staff. Neither man was married and when both were offered positions a

short time later, they understood that they would not be eligible to receive the travel

allowance.

One evening, Jim and Emmanuel were talking with some of the other employees at the job site

about the travel policy. A colleague said that he would like to be able to get home to see his ill

father more often, but he could not afford the cost of a commercial flight on a regular basis and

since he was not married, he was not entitled to the company allowance. Overhearing this, one

of the more senior employees commented, $$I don't think that the policy is very fair. Come to

think of it$,$ isn't there some law against that? You guys should talk to management about that.

They are good guys and might make some changes."

Discuss the legal issues raised in this case and what arguments that you would use if you

represented the employees and what arguments you would use if you represented the

company. Explain the factors that a court would consider and render a decision on the court's

behalf.

explain this in sub points or mid map for easy understaning $.$ please