help in homework

New User?

Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / Practical Employment Law (BLAW3005) Further Assessment Law Reform Written Submission ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION DOCUMENT AND MARKING GUIDE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS   Nature of the Assessment:   For this assessment you will work individually to prepare and submit a Law Reform Written Submission, designed to reflect the experience of advocating on behalf of a trade union

Practical Employment Law (BLAW3005) Further Assessment Law Reform Written Submission ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION DOCUMENT AND MARKING GUIDE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS   Nature of the Assessment:   For this assessment you will work individually to prepare and submit a Law Reform Written Submission, designed to reflect the experience of advocating on behalf of a trade union

Law

Practical Employment Law (BLAW3005)

Further Assessment
Law Reform Written Submission

ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION DOCUMENT
AND MARKING GUIDE

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

 

Nature of the Assessment:

 

For this assessment you will work individually to prepare and submit a Law Reform Written Submission, designed to reflect the experience of advocating on behalf of a trade union. 

 

This assessment aligns with all four Unit Learning Outcomes, as shown in the Unit Outline and below:

 

  1. Explain and discuss legal concepts and principles relating to employment and industrial law, using web-based technologies to assist sourcing those legal concepts and principles
  2. Analyse and interpret relevant legislation and case law relating to employment law and industrial law
  3. Analyse ethical issues arising from employment law
  4. Communicate employment law concepts effectively in written and oral activities using clear, concise and appropriate language

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

 

Content of the Law Reform Written Submission

1. The topic for your Law Reform Written Submission is: protection of workers in the gig economy. You must adopt a trade union perspective.  

2. The word limit for the Law Reform Written Submission is 2,000 words.

3. The Law Reform Written Submission must include:

a. contextualisation of the area of law in need of reform (approx. 350 words);

b. explanation of the current law, i.e., the law in need of reform (approx. 550 words);

c. your proposal(s) for reform (approx. 450 words);

d. justification why your proposal(s) for reform should be adopted (approx. 500 words); and

e. summary / conclusion for your submission (approx. 150 words).

4. The Law Reform Written Submission must be referenced in accordance with AGLC4 or Chicago 17th B, as detailed further below.

Self-Reflection of your Assessment

5. You must also conduct a self-reflection of the Law Reform Written Submission, using the specified form (see below).

6. The self-reflection must be added onto the end of your Law Reform Written Submission (i.e., in the same Word document).

7. The word limit for the self-reflection is 250 words, and is separate from that of the submission itself.

Submission of your Assessment

8. The combined document (Law Reform Written Submission and Self-Reflection) must be submitted to Turnitin on or before the due date and time in accordance with the Submission instructions below (see Additional Instructions).

 

 

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

 

Presentation

Your assessment must be presented in 12-point Times New Roman, Calibri

or Arial font, with 1.5cm line spacing and 2cm margins.

 

This formatting is to allow for easier reading and the provision of feedback. If you do not know how to format to follow these instructions, then please ask well in advance of the submission date.

 

Referencing

Referencing in the appropriate style is mandatory for academic integrity in all academic disciplines but particularly so in law, given its reliance on precedent and authority.

 

The applicable Style Guide for Practical Employment Law is either Australian Guide to Legal Citation 4th edition (footnote) or Chicago 17th B (author-date). You may select either.

 

A reference list is required for this assessment.

 

If you are unsure about why you need to reference, when you need to reference or how to reference then you may find it helpful to review the Curtin Library’s Referencing LibGuide:

  https://libguides.library.curtin.edu.au/referencing.

 

For detailed guidance regarding academic misconduct, including plagiarism and how to avoid it, please refer to:

https://students.curtin.edu.au/essentials/rights/academic-integrity/.

 

There is also a booklet you can download, Academic Integrity Guide for Students, from this site and a helpful Checklist to Help You Prevent Plagiarism in Your Work.

 

Word limit

The ability to develop and communicate a clear, concise and relevant argument is very important in law. The word limits often imposed on assessments are intended to encourage that ability.

 

The word limit for the written assessment is specified above.

 

Subject to the below, the word limit includes all words in the text of the assessment (including headings, quotations and the names of cases and legislation included in the body of the text).

 

The word limit does not include words on the cover page or (i) in-text references (Chicago 17th B) or (ii) citations in footnotes (AGLC4). Note: Discursive text included in footnotes pursuant to AGLC4 rule 1.1.5 must be included in the word count.

 

Assessments that exceed the word limit will be penalised by deducting 1 mark from the student’s final mark for the assessment for every 100 words over the word limit (to avoid doubt: you can go up to a total of 2,099 words for the Law Reform Written Submission and 350 words for the Self-Reflection without penalty). The penalty for going over the word limit is designed to mimic the real-world impact of actions such as going over Court-imposed word or page limits.

 

There is no penalty for being under the word limit. However, if an assessment is under the word limit it may lack sufficient depth of content and/or analysis.

 

Submission of the assessment

You must:

  • paste in the required assessment cover sheet as the first page of your assessment as text (not as a picture). The cover sheet can be found on the Blackboard site (under the ‘Assessment’ tab);
  • fill the cover sheet in, type your name against the statement that confirms this work is your own and is not copied, or substantially copied from another person’s;
  • save your complete assessment as a Microsoft Word document (not PDF) and give it a file name as follows ‘[Your Surname]_[Your Initial]_Unit Name_Assessment Reference’. Your assessment reference may be the assessment number or name.
  • upload your assessment by the due date to the Turnitin link provided on the Unit’s BlackBoard site in .doc or .docx format. PDF format is not acceptable.
  • you can only submit assessment via Turnitin; assessments attached to emails are not acceptable.

 

Instructions on how to submit are on Blackboard if required.

 

Assessment extensions and late assessment penalties

Please refer to the Unit Outline for details on how to apply for an assessment extension and what evidence is required to support one.

 

The Unit Outline also specifies the penalties that apply for late submission without an approved extension.

 

The penalties for late submission are designed to mimic the real-world impact of actions such as missing Court filing deadlines.

 

You are strongly encouraged to start your assessment and plan your time to complete it before the due date, so as to avoid any last-minute panic over any unexpected events that impact on your ability to complete it.

 

 

Marking Guide

Student Name:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria

Marks

Below Expectations (0-49)

Meets Expectations (50-59)

Meets Expectations Well (60-69)

Exceeds Expectations (70-79)

Greatly Exceeds Expectations (80+)

 

Contextualisation and current law

/ 7

Failed to contextualise the area of law and/or to explain the current law. 

Provided a basic contextualisation to the area of law. A basic explanation of the current law was provided.

Provided generally effective contextualisation of the area of law. A generally effective explanation of the current law was provided. However, there were some substantial gaps in the discussion.

 

Provided effective contextualisation of the area of law. An effective explanation of the current law was provided. One or two areas could have used further detail.

Comprehensively contextualised the area of law. Provided a comprehensive and accurate explanation of the current law.

 

Proposed reform and justification

/ 10

Failed to identify potential reform and/or to justify the proposed reform.

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate, but lacked depth of discussion. Basic justification for reform provided; more depth needed.

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate and discussed in good detail. Generally effective justification, however, potential to engage more fully in critical analysis with respect to the feasibility of the proposed reform(s).

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate and comprehensively discussed. Effective justification with good evidence of critical analysis.  

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate, comprehensively discussed, and the need for their implementation was persuasively argued. Strong evidence of critical analysis.

 

Research (including, for example, use of statistical material to contextualise research problem, identification of relevant case law and legislation, engagement with existing commentary for proposed reform, etc.)

/ 6

Failed to support submission with relevant source material. Quantity of source material and depth of engagement with source material both require substantial improvement.

Submission made occasional reference to relevant source material to support discussion. Quantity of source material and depth of engagement with source material both require improvement.  

Submission supported in most areas with reference to relevant source material, however, engagement with source material (quantity or depth of engagement) could have been taken further on occasion.

Submission effectively supported in most areas with reference to relevant source material, however, one or two areas where engagement with source material (quantity or depth of engagement) could have been taken further. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submission effectively supported in all areas with detailed reference to a wide range of relevant source material.

 

Referencing and Presentation

/ 5

Poor written expression. Grammar and spelling do not meet required standards.

Acceptable written expression with some lack of clarity. Grammar and

spelling are satisfactory with noticeable errors.

Good written expression with the occasional lack of clarity. Grammar and spelling are of a good standard with occasional errors.

Clear and persuasive written expression. Grammar and

spelling are of a high standard with only minor, infrequent errors.

Clear, concise, and very persuasive written expression. Grammar and

spelling are excellent.

 

Little to no application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with substantial errors.

Basic application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with substantial errors.

Good application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with occasional errors. 

Very good application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with minor, infrequent errors.

Outstanding application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with no or minimal errors. 

 

A reference list has not been included.

A reference list has been included.

 

 

Self-Reflection

/ 2

Failed to adequately engage in self-reflection.

 

 

(0 marks)

Engaged in a basic level of self-reflection.

 

(1 mark)

 

Engaged in effective self-reflection, demonstrating the ability to think critically about their own work and learning experience.

 

 

(2 marks)

 

Total

/ 30

 

 

Comment(s)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self-Reflection:

  1. To complete the self-reflection, shade in the cell in each line of the marking guide below that you think reflects your performance for the assessment.
  2. Do not indicate a mark for any of the criteria or categories or for the assessment as a whole.
  3. In the Comment section of the marking guide, briefly (in no more than 250 words total) reflect on your submission. Think about:
    1. what did you (and your group) do well?
    2. what would you do differently next time?
    3. what did you learn from the preparation and submission of the Law Reform Oral Submission assessment?
  4. Add a copy of the completed self-reflection to your Law Reform Written Submission and submit it by the due date and time as instructed above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marking Guide for Self-Reflection

Student Name:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria

 

Below Expectations (0-49)

Meets Expectations (50-59)

Meets Expectations Well (60-69)

Exceeds Expectations (70-79)

Greatly Exceeds Expectations (80+)

 

Contextualisation and current law

 

Failed to contextualise the area of law and/or to explain the current law. 

Provided a basic contextualisation to the area of law. A basic explanation of the current law was provided.

Provided generally effective contextualisation of the area of law. A generally effective explanation of the current law was provided. However, there were some substantial gaps in the discussion.

 

Provided effective contextualisation of the area of law. An effective explanation of the current law was provided. One or two areas could have used further detail.

Comprehensively contextualised the area of law. Provided a comprehensive and accurate explanation of the current law.

 

Proposed reform and justification

 

Failed to identify potential reform and/or to justify the proposed reform.

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate, but lacked depth of discussion. Basic justification for reform provided; more depth needed.

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate and discussed in good detail. Generally effective justification, however, potential to engage more fully in critical analysis with respect to the feasibility of the proposed reform(s).

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate and comprehensively discussed. Effective justification with good evidence of critical analysis. 

The reform proposal(s) were appropriate, comprehensively discussed, and the need for their implementation was persuasively argued. Strong evidence of critical analysis.

 

Research (including, for example, use of statistical material to contextualise research problem, identification of relevant case law and legislation, engagement with existing commentary for proposed reform, etc.)

 

Failed to support submission with relevant source material. Quantity of source material and depth of engagement with source material both require substantial improvement.

Submission made occasional reference to relevant source material to support discussion. Quantity of source material and depth of engagement with source material both require improvement. 

Submission supported in most areas with reference to relevant source material, however, engagement with source material (quantity or depth of engagement) could have been taken further on occasion.

Submission effectively supported in most areas with reference to relevant source material, however, one or two areas where engagement with source material (quantity or depth of engagement) could have been taken further. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submission effectively supported in all areas with detailed reference to a wide range of relevant source material.

 

Referencing and Presentation

 

Poor written expression. Grammar and spelling do not meet required standards.

Acceptable written expression with some lack of clarity. Grammar and

spelling are satisfactory with noticeable errors.

Good written expression with the occasional lack of clarity. Grammar and spelling are of a good standard with occasional errors.

Clear and persuasive written expression. Grammar and

spelling are of a high standard with only minor, infrequent errors.

Clear, concise, and very persuasive written expression. Grammar and

spelling are excellent.

 

Little to no application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with substantial errors.

Basic application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with substantial errors.

Good application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with occasional errors. 

Very good application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with minor, infrequent errors.

Outstanding application of Chicago 17th B or AGLC4 with no or minimal errors. 

 

A reference list has not been included.

A reference list has been included.

 

 

Self-Reflection

 

Failed to adequately engage in self-reflection.

 

 

(0 marks)

Engaged in a basic level of self-reflection.

 

(1 mark)

 

Engaged in effective self-reflection, demonstrating the ability to think critically about their own work and learning experience.

 

 

(2 marks)

 

Total

 

 

 

Comment(s)

 

(Write brief responses to these questions. No more than 250 words combined total).

 

What did you do well?

 

 

What would you do differently next time?

 

 

What did you learn from the preparation of the law reform written submission?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

13.99 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?

Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

rated 5 stars

Purchased 3 times

Completion Status 100%
View Answer

Sitejabber (5.0)

BBC (5.0)

Trustpilot (4.9)

Google (5.0)

Related Questions