AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: "Incomplete
No Submission"

Learning Outcome 2: "Incomplete
No Submission"

Learning Outcome 3: Pass
"Assessment Criterion 3.1 — Training Needs Analysis
Grade: Pass

You identified four concrete skill gaps — inconsistent communication, weak greetings, slow problem solving, and weak onboarding structure — and linked each one specifically to evidence in the story. Your ranking is well-argued at every position, with clear reasons tied to the hotel's targets and the General Manager's goals. Your five-step plan uses all the right story resources in a logical sequence, and your two huddle questions naturally draw out both confidence and challenge areas. Your two baseline measures of guest satisfaction and average check-in time are taken directly from the story with clear and practical recording methods for each. This criterion is a pass.

Assessment Criterion 3.2 — Front Desk Agent Training Program
Grade: Pass

Your three learning objectives are clearly written and observable, covering policy explanation, warm greetings with eye contact, and smooth problem solving when rooms are unavailable. Live role-play and guided scripts are both well-justified using the story's resources, referencing the small training room, the two-hour weekly allowance, and the low cost of printed materials. Your greeting script is warm, complete, and one of the most natural submitted. Your diversity and inclusion step of practising clear speech and checking for understanding with guests of different accents and languages is specific and directly grounded in the story. This criterion is a pass.

Assessment Criterion 3.3 — Evaluating the Training and Improving It
Grade: Pass

Your three evaluation methods of weekly comment card checks, daily check-in time tracking using arrival reports, and twice-weekly supervisor huddles are all story-based with clear frequency. Your Week 2 improvement sentence and adjustment are both specific and practical, targeting role-play and guided scripts to close the remaining gap. Your two reasons for why check-in time improved but satisfaction did not are drawn directly from the story, and your training adjustment of focusing on greetings and consistent communication ensures speed does not compromise experience. Your Week 2 and Week 6 follow-ups are both story-based and well-structured, closing the six weeks with a meaningful review session. This criterion is a pass."

Learning Outcome 4: Referred
"For 4.1 (analyze and interpret employment laws and regulations), you correctly identified the core problem with asking staff to begin tasks before clock-in and you noted that work must fall within paid, scheduled hours. That shows the right instinct about fairness. To meet the pass standard, though, you also needed to set out the specific compliance steps the hotel must take when “off-the-clock” work appears. In practice that means stopping the practice immediately, reviewing recent time records, paying staff for all time already worked including any overtime, retraining supervisors on lawful timekeeping, and reminding staff they are protected from retaliation when they report concerns. On the accommodation scenario you were right to reassign duties that avoid heavy lifting, but the criterion expects a simple, documented accommodation plan reached with the employee: confirm temporary restrictions with medical input if needed, agree safe task adjustments or team lifts/tools, put the plan in writing, and review it periodically. Your view on cameras needs correction for compliance and ethics. Cameras should be for safety and security, not for timing or monitoring staff during breaks; they must never be placed in private areas, access should be tightly limited, and any policy should be clearly communicated. Because these concrete stop–pay–audit–retrain–protect steps and the documented accommodation process were not included, 4.1 is REFERRED.

For 4.2 (evaluate the impact of diversity and equal employment opportunity on HR practice), you recognised that a policy which undermines protective hairstyles can lead to discrimination and harm morale, and you urged clear rules that consider culture and religion. That is a good starting point. To reach a pass you also needed to translate that principle into practical HR actions that change day-to-day practice: revise the appearance policy so it focuses on hygiene, cleanliness and safety with inclusive examples that explicitly allow protective hairstyles; apply the standard consistently to everyone; brief leaders so remarks about “brand appropriateness” do not exclude cultural styles; and demonstrate how inclusion improves operations by adding simple practices such as short communication coaching for clarity with guests and reasonable religious accommodations handled consistently. Your onboarding idea of a buddy system is helpful; pairing it with a clear day-one outline in plain language and an early check-in with new hires would make the inclusion impact visible. As written, the answer remains too general, so 4.2 is REFERRED.

For 4.3 (assess ethical dilemmas and propose appropriate solutions), you correctly framed the server’s situation as a fairness and respect issue and stressed the need to acknowledge complaints. However, shifting her to a different time alone does not resolve the harassment risk or set a protective standard. A passing response needs immediate, concrete action: support the employee, intervene with the guests and set boundaries or remove them if behaviour continues, document the incident, and coach or discipline the lead who dismissed the concern so it does not recur. On helping Daniel with feedback, you emphasised purpose and fairness, which is positive, but you also needed a simple, repeatable routine he can use on shift, for example observe a check-in, name one specific positive, name one specific improvement, practice the line together, and follow up next shift. Because those specific actions were not provided, 4.3 is REFERRED."