PROPERTY OF
VarsityTimes
For more assistance and exclusive, unique assignments, contact us on Telegram:
https://t.me/varsity_times
TAKE YOUR PICK (OPTION A or B)
OPTION A
QUESTION 1
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the employment law
consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft the report is?” (4 marks)
ANSWER:
Mr Lampert, from an employment law perspective, Ms Goolam’s use of Generative AI
(GenAI) without authorisation is a clear breach of the MTE’s workplace rules, which
explicitly forbid the use of unapproved tools. That alone can amount to misconduct. But
the matter is more serious because the report she submitted—an official document—
contained fabricated sources and baseless claims. This raises concerns about dishonesty
and possibly gross negligence. Under the Labour Relations Act, dishonesty of this nature
can justify dismissal, especially whenOPTION
the employeeB holds a senior role where trust and
professional
QUESTION 1 judgment are critical. So, her use of GenAI isn’t just about using a tool—it’s
about breaking trust and submitting work that misrepresents facts to Parliament.
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the employment law
consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft the report is?” (4 marks)
ANSWER:
Mr Lampert, Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft a portion of the report has serious
employment law implications. Since the MTE’s internal rules clearly prohibit the use of
unapproved tools like AI for work purposes, her actions go against established workplace
policy. This could amount to misconduct, especially because the report contained false, AI-
generated information and fake sources. Even though she edited the report, the core
content was still misleading and could damage the credibility of both the MTE and the
Disclaimer:
HCTE. provided
The materials Under the are Labour
intendedRelations Act, this
for educational kind of dishonest
and informational or only.
purposes negligent
They conduct can
should justify disciplinary
not be submitted as action,
original including possible
work or used dismissal,
in violation of anyparticularly when it involves senior
academic institution's
policies.staff
Thewho
buyerare held to
is solely high standards
responsible for howofthe
professionalism.
materials are used.
VarsityTimes
For more assistance and exclusive, unique assignments, contact us on Telegram:
https://t.me/varsity_times
TAKE YOUR PICK (OPTION A or B)
OPTION A
QUESTION 1
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the employment law
consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft the report is?” (4 marks)
ANSWER:
Mr Lampert, from an employment law perspective, Ms Goolam’s use of Generative AI
(GenAI) without authorisation is a clear breach of the MTE’s workplace rules, which
explicitly forbid the use of unapproved tools. That alone can amount to misconduct. But
the matter is more serious because the report she submitted—an official document—
contained fabricated sources and baseless claims. This raises concerns about dishonesty
and possibly gross negligence. Under the Labour Relations Act, dishonesty of this nature
can justify dismissal, especially whenOPTION
the employeeB holds a senior role where trust and
professional
QUESTION 1 judgment are critical. So, her use of GenAI isn’t just about using a tool—it’s
about breaking trust and submitting work that misrepresents facts to Parliament.
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the employment law
consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft the report is?” (4 marks)
ANSWER:
Mr Lampert, Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft a portion of the report has serious
employment law implications. Since the MTE’s internal rules clearly prohibit the use of
unapproved tools like AI for work purposes, her actions go against established workplace
policy. This could amount to misconduct, especially because the report contained false, AI-
generated information and fake sources. Even though she edited the report, the core
content was still misleading and could damage the credibility of both the MTE and the
Disclaimer:
HCTE. provided
The materials Under the are Labour
intendedRelations Act, this
for educational kind of dishonest
and informational or only.
purposes negligent
They conduct can
should justify disciplinary
not be submitted as action,
original including possible
work or used dismissal,
in violation of anyparticularly when it involves senior
academic institution's
policies.staff
Thewho
buyerare held to
is solely high standards
responsible for howofthe
professionalism.
materials are used.
