Objective The objective of this capstone project is to apply your knowledge of Alberta employment legislation and common law to analyze a real-world employment law case from both the employer and employee perspectives. Students will construct a written hearing brief using the FILAC (Facts, Issue, Law, Analysis, Conclusion) structure and incorporate relevant case law from CanLII.org to support their arguments. This capstone project provides students with a comprehensive opportunity to apply their knowledge of employment legislation and common law in a real-world context. By analyzing the case from both sides students will develop a deeper understanding of employment law principles and their practical applications. Instructions You will be provided with a realistic employment law case that involves a dispute between an employer and an employee. Your task is to analyze the case from both the employer's and employee's perspectives and construct a written hearing brief that follows the FILAC structure. 1. Outline the Relevant Facts (F) Briefly introduce the case, including the names of the parties involved, the nature of the dispute, and the relevant legal issues. Summarize the key facts of the case, highlighting the events leading up to the dispute and the actions taken by both the employer and the employee. 2. Identification of the Issues (I) Clearly state the legal issues at the heart of the dispute. Discuss the specific aspects of Alberta employment legislation and common law that are in question thus need to be before a judge for a decision. 3. Relevant Laws and Regulations (L) Discuss the relevant Alberta employment legislation and common law principles that apply to the case. Explain how these laws inform the rights and obligations of both the employer and the employee.2 | P a g e 4. Analysis and Arguments (A) Present the arguments from the employer's standpoint. Analyze how the applicable laws support the employer's position. Use case law from CanLII.org to illustrate your points. Present the arguments from the employee's standpoint. Analyze how the applicable laws support the employee's position. Again, incorporate relevant case law from CanLII.org to strengthen your arguments. 5. Conclusion Summarize the main arguments from both the employer and employee perspectives. Offer a balanced conclusion that addresses the strengths and weaknesses of each side's arguments.

6. References

7. Written Analysis - Your assignment should be presented as a written hearing brief. Your hearing brief should be well-structured, coherent, and supported by clear and concise arguments. - You are required to use case law from CanLII.org (a minimum of three employment law cases from January 2018 to current year must be used) to support your arguments. Ensure proper in-text citations and references. - Your hearing brief should be approximately Three Thousand words - Properly cite the relevant section of employment legislation and common law that support your analysis. Include the source of information you used in your citations and references. Also include the link to the section of the legislation used. - Your document should have headings organized into the following sections. a) Introduction b) Case Overview and Facts c) Identification of Issues d) Relevant Laws and Regulations e) Analysis and Arguments f) Conclusion

Case: The Case of Salma Parks

The Facts

The facts of the case are not in dispute. Salma Parks was a registered nurse employed in the oncology (cancer) unit of University Hospital. Parks is now 37 years old and was hired by University Hospital on June 1, 2011. The hospital has a three-point performance rating system: (1) does not meet expectations; (2) meets expectations; and (3) exceeds expectations. Over the years Parks' performance ratings were "meets expectations" for most years and "exceeds expectations" for 2015 and 2016. In her role as a cancer nurse, Parks was responsible for monitoring patient care, administering cancer drugs (e.g., chemotherapy, opioids), monitoring patient regimes, and counselling patients and their families concerning care options. Accordingly, nurses on this unit were required to maintain certification as "cancer specialists." Parks received this certification in 2010 and had maintained it ever since. Parks was verbally counselled and received two written warnings for absenteeism on February 14, 2018, July 25, 2018, and October 4, 2018, respectively. A union representative was present for all warnings. Parks was terminated on November 7, 2019, following a three-day leave of absence without permission. The letter of discharge states that Parks was terminated for failing to call in sick as well as for excessive absenteeism (19 percent as against a hospital average of 7 percent). A union representative was present during each of the meetings where warnings were presented to Parks. Also, on October 4, 2018, Ashley Dorgan (Park's manager) reminded Parks about the hospital's confidential Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Dorgan advised Parks that she could call the EAP about anything, including drug and alcohol addiction or the recent death of her daughter, that might be affecting her attendance. Before her discharge, Parks sought treatment for a drug (a painkiller known as oxycodone) and alcohol addiction. She has been in and out of counselling since October 15, 2018. Between the initial treatment in October 2018 and the time of the arbitration hearing (July 15, 2020), she had three major relapses in which she stopped attending her counselling sessions (dates January 3, 2019, February 14, 2019, and March 17, 2019). She has been drug- and alcohol-free since April 11, 2019. At the time of dismissal, management was unaware that she was being treated for her addiction. Parks' addiction counsellor, Dr. Amari, believes that she has an 80 percent chance of remaining chemical-free over the next few years. In Dr. Amari's opinion, it was the unexpected death of Parks' eight-year-old daughter, who in March 2017 died in the ER of the hospital where she worked, that caused the subsequent addiction. Specifically, Parks lost control of her car when it hit black ice. An accident followed where she was injured and her daughter subsequently died. Parks was prescribed oxycodone as a painkiller for her accident-related injuries. There is no evidence that Parks ever stole oxycodone from the hospital; however, that medication is readily availableon the cancer unit where she works. Now that her patient hasrecovered from this tragic event shock, Dr. Amari believes that Parks can maintain an acceptable attendance and performance record as a cancer nurse in the future. Regarding other employees, Ashley Dorgan states that only one other cancer nurse, out of a staff of 25, had an absenteeism rate greater than 10 percent (15 percent). That nurse was never given a warning of any kind.

Key Dates June 1, 2011: Parks hired February 14, 2018: Verbal counselling July 25, 2018: Written warning October 4, 2018: Second written warning October 15, 2018: Parks' initial treatment November 7, 2019: Termination July 15, 2020: Arbitration Relevant Collective Agreement Clause Article 15Corrective Action and Discipline 15.1.Employees can be disciplined only for just cause. Such discipline must be reasonable and commensurate with the seriousness of the violation. 15.2.Both the union and the hospital believe in the concept of progressive discipline. Accordingly, they agree that a verbal counselling should normally take place prior to any disciplinary action. Should an employee's conduct or performance not improve after this counselling, the normal progression of discipline will be as follows: Step 1: Written warning Step 2: Second written warning Step 3: Suspension without pay Step 4: Termination 15.3.Notwithstanding clause 15.2, it is understood that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant immediate discharge and/or a faster progression through the process outlined in 15.2. 15.4.Employees have the right to have a union representative present during any of the steps outlined in clause 15.2.