Answer:
Option A is right, by establishing and following a formal discipline policy, so discipline is fair.
Explanation:
Every organization has its rules and regulation, which include following all the discipline policies of the company. When an employee does not follow them, the company can dismiss that employee. The same thing happened at the Tri-mart. If Tri-mart can prove that they established and followed all the discipline policies, they can protect themselves.
Answer:
Option B, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Explanation:
Scope of employment refers to where an employee was and what actions were being undertaken when the injury took place. If the employee was within the scope of employment, then the employer would likely be held responsible. But, if the employee was outside the scope of employment, then it is harder to prove the employer was negligent.
Within the scope employment means the injury took place; on or near work premises, during business trips, within a company's vehicle, while running an errand for the employer.
Outside the scope employment means the employee was not conducting any official business when the injury took place.
In the case of Francis, although he was on an official errand, he stopped in the middle of delivery route to have lunch with his friends which was not part of his official errand and he got injured while doing so.
Therefore, Francis would normally be considered to be acting: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.
<span> They control a country's </span>foreign exchange reserves and set its monetary policies. <span>Bank for International Settlements </span>promotes monetary stability and bank uniformity. The impact to it is that it causes disorganization between all banks around the world.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
An example is at a checkout station of a grocery store, where they scan UPCs
True. You would need to look at the website address if it shows https s meaning it’s secure.