本篇代写价格-马里恩的案件讲了Marion是Technicalities Ltd公司的一名办公室职员，受该公司指示为is工作，具体职责由双方商定。然而，在就业期间有许多问题。马里昂被拒绝提供一个合同的条款和条件，要遵守在工作场所。此外，IS的工作场所让她处于痛苦的状态。尽管如此，公司还是报销了她的费用，但她的长期缺勤并没有得到补偿，也从未意识到她因为公司的失误而失去了赚钱的能力。本篇代写价格文章由加拿大第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
The application of Fair Work Act as instructed by Fair Work Commission indicates that the employer does not have the right to dismiss the employee for a hazard caused by the management. When the employee loses her capacity to earn, IS and Technicalities Ltd are liable to offer an alternate solution either by means of compensation or a flexible job till she is thoroughly recovered. The problem lies with Technicalities Ltd. While IS has just employed a person referred by Technicalities Ltd, the latter becomes responsible to ensure that everything is on place and the employee is safe. When IS posts an ad on the web, Technicalities should have brought it down and fought for justice of Marion.
Marion is an office worker according to Technicalities Ltd and has been instructed by this company to work for IS on a specific role agreed by both the sides. However, there are many issues during the employment period. Marion is denied to be offered a contract of terms and conditions to be followed within the workplace. Additionally, the workplace of IS has let her in the state of agony. Still, the expenses were reimbursed but her long absence was not recovered and IS never realized that she lost her earning capacity because of the fault made by the company.
The case of Marion clearly notifies that she deserves justice in terms of rehabilitation and compensation and her job continuation is also the need of hour. Else, legal claims can be developed and filed by Marion against IS and Technicalities Ltd. The breaches of workers and compensation act 1998, occupational health and safety act and employee – employer contractual law show the need for immediate resolution by Technicalities Ltd or the consequences to be faced by both IS and Technicalities Ltd would be abnormal. The accountability of an employer is misused and this can be stated by Marion in the case.