Need Help? Call us at 1.800.667.9300
To access a tool:
1. Pick either the topic or tool type you are interested in from the dropdown below, and
2. Select the tool you want from the list created
Every month we will put new featured tools in this area.
Here’s how the laws in your province or territory protect young workers:
This time of year, many companies are adding “young workers” 25 and under to their staffs.
Covering key themes and offering practical how-to advice, this PowerPoint presentation from Inspecht can serve as a roadmap for employers looking to embark on social recruiting. But this tool isn’t only for social newbies. If you already have a social recruiting program in place you’ll also want to take a look at this document; it likely contains a key point or two you may have missed or forgotten. Click here for the PowerPoint
Where one employee’s human right conflicts with another’s, employers get caught in the middle. On April 18, 2012, the Ontario Human Rights Commissions issued Guidelines to help employers resolve such conflicts.
This tool provides a step-by-step process to help you effectively use Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn for employee recruitment. It also offers tips and suggestions.
How to respond to refusals to do dangerous work without liability for reprisals and wrongful dismissal -By Glenn Demby
THE PROBLEM: Workers have the right to refuse work if they have reasonable grounds to believe the work poses an undue or unnatural hazard to themselves or others. Properly handling a work refusal can be tricky and missteps can lead to OHS violations and other forms of liability. So it’s important to document each step in the process. HOW TO USE THIS TOOL: Tailor this form to reflect the work refusal requirements in your jurisdiction’s OHS law and your company’s policies. Use it to document all of the steps taken when a worker exercises his refusal
KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE
|
LIMITS ON RIGHT TO REFUSE UNSAFE WORK Under the OHS laws in each jurisdiction, workers may NOT refuse unsafe work: |
||
|
RELEVANT LAW |
||
| FED | 1) If the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger; or 2) The danger is a normal condition of employment [Sec. 128(2)]. | Canada Labour Code |
| AB | If the danger is normal for that occupation [Sec. 35(2)(a)]. | OHS Act |
| BC | No specified limits | |
Only 40 percent of Canadian private companies have a clear plan of succession in place, according to research conducted by the Canadian Financial Executives Research Foundation (CFERF) for business advisory firm Grant Thornton.
Although initially intended for HR professionals and recruiters in the retail sector, this multi-faceted tool from MindField Group, Canada’s leading recruitment outsourcing provider (RPO) for the retail sector, is applicable to almost any environment.
Here’s how the laws in your province or territory protect young workers:
This time of year, many companies are adding “young workers” 25 and under to their staffs.
Covering key themes and offering practical how-to advice, this PowerPoint presentation from Inspecht can serve as a roadmap for employers looking to embark on social recruiting. But this tool isn’t only for social newbies. If you already have a social recruiting program in place you’ll also want to take a look at this document; it likely contains a key point or two you may have missed or forgotten. Click here for the PowerPoint
Where one employee’s human right conflicts with another’s, employers get caught in the middle. On April 18, 2012, the Ontario Human Rights Commissions issued Guidelines to help employers resolve such conflicts.
This tool provides a step-by-step process to help you effectively use Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn for employee recruitment. It also offers tips and suggestions.
How to respond to refusals to do dangerous work without liability for reprisals and wrongful dismissal -By Glenn Demby
THE PROBLEM: Workers have the right to refuse work if they have reasonable grounds to believe the work poses an undue or unnatural hazard to themselves or others. Properly handling a work refusal can be tricky and missteps can lead to OHS violations and other forms of liability. So it’s important to document each step in the process. HOW TO USE THIS TOOL: Tailor this form to reflect the work refusal requirements in your jurisdiction’s OHS law and your company’s policies. Use it to document all of the steps taken when a worker exercises his refusal
KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR PROVINCE
|
LIMITS ON RIGHT TO REFUSE UNSAFE WORK Under the OHS laws in each jurisdiction, workers may NOT refuse unsafe work: |
||
|
RELEVANT LAW |
||
| FED | 1) If the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger; or 2) The danger is a normal condition of employment [Sec. 128(2)]. | Canada Labour Code |
| AB | If the danger is normal for that occupation [Sec. 35(2)(a)]. | OHS Act |
| BC | No specified limits | |
Only 40 percent of Canadian private companies have a clear plan of succession in place, according to research conducted by the Canadian Financial Executives Research Foundation (CFERF) for business advisory firm Grant Thornton.
Although initially intended for HR professionals and recruiters in the retail sector, this multi-faceted tool from MindField Group, Canada’s leading recruitment outsourcing provider (RPO) for the retail sector, is applicable to almost any environment.
Constructive dismissal Don't let Salary and Benefits Cuts Lead to Wrong Dismissal Liability The Business Case for HR Showing your CEO How HR Budget Cuts Cost More Than They Save
Layoffs & Restructuring Beware of 'Contructive Dismissal' Risks Workplace Violence Using Ricks Assessment to Manage Your Liability Risks
Paying Wages Are You At Risk of an Overtime Class Action? Sexual Harassment 8 Traps to Avoid When Investigating Harassment Complaints
The Year In Compliance Overtime Mega-Lawsuits, the Changing Face of Retirement & an Unexpected Victory on Termination Termination Traps How Not to Provide Notice of Termination
The Insider's 3rd Annual 'Just Cause' Scorecard Lessons from the Recent Cases, Part 2 Protecting The Pregnant Worker Drawing the Line between Safety & Discrimination
Terminating and laying off employees is potentially one of the biggest legal risks companies confront. Making the wrong moves can expose your company to costly lawsuits, unwanted legal fees, and negative publicity. But taking the right steps and properly documenting your actions can protect your company – and make your job as an HR Manager much easier. This 18-page Special Report covers what you need to know to navigate the legal minefield when terminating or laying off employees. You get practical, “how-to” help handling termination notices … making termination payments … avoiding common but costly termination mistakes …
GROUP TERMINATION Legal Requirements of Mass Layoffs
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES What Are Your Legal Obligations to ‘Temps’?
While they may be unavoidable, workforce reductions don’t always have to be permanent. Structuring layoffs as temporary can enable you to maintain ties with key employees you hope to recall and if not avoid, at least delay, having to provide notice and other termination payments.
Attendance management programs (AMPs) have proven effective in helping employers get absenteeism under control. But they’ve also stirred up a hornet’s nest of litigation. Among other things, employees and their unions have attacked AMPs as a form of disability discrimination.
Hydro One sought to partially wind up a management compensation with respect to laid off members. Sec. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act allows partial wind-up when a “significant number of” members cease to be employed as a result of reorganization. The Superintendent rejected the wind-up but the Appeals Tribunal let it go through. Even though the terminated members represented only 73 of 3,913 plan members, “significant” isn’t just about the size of the group but its importance. The court found the Tribunal’s ruling reasonable [Hydro One Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2010] O.J. No. 52, Jan. 11,
A company’s director accused the business development coordinator of spreading rumours about him. A month later, the coordinator’s supervisor gave her a negative review and four days after that told her that her contract wouldn’t be renewed. This news greatly upset the coordinator who eventually went out on leave as recommended by her doctor. When she was ready to return to work, she was told that she’d been replaced. The coordinator filed a discrimination complaint, claiming that she’d been fired because of a disability. The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed her complaint. There was no evidence that the coordinator had suffered
Situation Emma Reebord is self-conscious about her chipped nails. So she treats herself to a set of “sculptured,” i.e., false nails. Her fellow housekeepers at the Hans Zarkleen Nursing Centre where she works love Emma’s new look. But false nails are a violation of the Centre’s Dress Code. Even though Emma doesn’t directly treat residents, the Code applies to indirect caregivers, including housekeepers. Emma claims that the Dress Code violates her right of self-expression. The Centre argues that the policy is an important infection control policy and is based on accepted scientific evidence that false nails accumulate bacteria at an abnormally
An employer facing difficult financial circumstances was routinely late in remitting union dues it collected from employees. It admittedly relied on the collected dues to finance its operations. The union eventually got fed up and filed a grievance. A labour arbitrator said the company's financial difficulties didn't excuse its late payments but that punitive damages weren't justified because the union tolerated the late payments for so long. The arbitrator ordered the overdue payments be made with interest and threatened more severe consequences if the company didn't make future payments on time [Wabi Iron and Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers Local
Talking on cell phones and texting at work is distracting and often minimizes productivity—especially when the communication isn’t work-related. It can also increase the risk of accidents. And it’s not just a traffic safety issue. While most of society has caught on to the dangers of cell phones and texting while driving, these practices may be even more dangerous to workers on assembly lines, operating heavy machinery or performing other safety sensitive jobs that don’t involve holding a steering wheel in their hands. And while injuries at work are never a good thing, in this economy, the costs of a
On his last day of work, a laid off regional sales manager wrote his customers an email thanking them for their support and ruing the “diminishment of service” layoffs portended. “It’s a shame that the corporation doesn’t feel the need to provide support” to you, he wrote. The company claimed the email was just cause for termination and tried to nullify the manager’s severance deal. But the court said no. The email was little more than a “snarky parting shot from a mid-level employee pushed out the door” and there was no evidence customers took it seriously [Anderson v. Culligan
When a company had an urgent need to fill a switchboard position, it offered the job to a crane operator who had been injured 10 years ago and was still on the payroll. The company told her to get her doctor’s permission and asked her to hurry because there were other employees in line for the job. The operator knew that her doctor was away for seven weeks, but decided to wait for his return rather than have one of his colleagues evaluate her. Meanwhile, she didn’t get back to the company. The company dismissed her and she sued the
Highlights of the Chief Prevention Officer’s briefing:
Highlights of reports issued by some of Canada’s leading compensation consulting firms:
The German word Schadenfreude means deriving joy at the suffering of others. If you’re into Schadenfreude, 2009 was a great year. For the rest of us, it was a year to forget. On a national level, HR compliance was dominated by one big story: recession. And, as if all of the economic suffering wasn’t bad enough, 2009 will also be remembered as the year of pandemic. January 1, 2010 can’t get here fast enough! As we do every year, the Insider steps back and tries to put the HR compliance year into perspective. In addition to pointing out the key changes
An arbitrator ruled that an employer could make aluminum smelter workers submit to immediate drug or alcohol tests where there are reasonable grounds for testing but couldn’t discipline workers for refusing to undergo broad medical evaluations not tied to drug or alcohol use. It also ruled that the “zero tolerance” policy calling for immediate termination of workers who tested positive was unreasonable and violated “just cause” standards [Rio Tinto Alcan Primary Metal Kitimat/Kemano Operations BC v. National Automobile, Aerospace Transportation and General Workers of Canada, Local 2301, [2011] CanLII 7211 (BC L.A.), Feb. 6,
The National Capital Commission (NCC) agreed to create a new committee to provide guidance on ensuring accessibility to disabled people. The agreement was brokered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in mediating a settlement to a dispute that began back in 1994 when NCC constructed the York Street Steps staircase linking its Sussex Drive to Mackenzie Avenue offices in Ottawa [Canadian Human Rights Commission Press Release, May 27,
A terminated employee waited more than a year after she was fired to claim unpaid severance and termination pay. She admitted her claim was late but argued that she had been “preoccupied” and didn’t know she had a right to make the claim. But the Labour Relations Board wasn’t impressed and refused to let her file the claim [Malwatta v. Zellers Inc., 2009 CanLII 21073 (ON L.R.B.), April 28,
A U.S.-based IT services consulting company hires an experienced Canadian financial professional as director of special projects to work out of its Newfoundland office. The director signs an employment contract that says his relationship with the company is “terminable at will”— that is, either the director or the company may terminate the employment at any time and for any reason or for no reason. The clause goes on to say that any dispute arising over this clause will be governed by and construed in accordance with “substantive Canadian employment laws.” The company is disappointed with the director’s performance and fires him
A black truck driver claimed his manager committed racial discrimination. As evidence he noted that the manager referred to him as a “black man” and cited an incident when the manager quipped: “You don’t get paid—you are still a slave.” The human rights tribunal ruled that the joke about slavery, while in poor taste, was an isolated incident and, given the friendly bantering between the two men, not enough to constitute discrimination [Feleke v. Cox, 2009 BCHRT 7, (CanLII), Jan. 9,
The Federal Court recently ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should not set an unduly restrictive threshold to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of family status. In Johnstone v. Canada (Attorney General) [2007] F.C.J. No. 43 (Fed. Ct.), Johnstone was a customs inspector employed with the Canada Border Security Agency (“CBSA”) at Pearson International Airport in Toronto. She could not find childcare that matched her or her husband’s shift schedule upon her return from maternity leave. With both her and her husband working rotating shifts, it was essentially impossible to find childcare. Johnstone requested accommodation
A company that installs HVAC equipment paid employees their regular wages for working on Good Friday and Victoria Day. But the company claimed that employees got their due because their regular wage rate during the year was actually “grossed up” to $15 per hour. The Labour Relations Board ruled that the arrangement violated the ESA. Unlike vacation pay, there’s no substitute formula for calculating statutory holiday pay under the ESA. Employees should either have gotten overtime or an extra day off [Polar Bear Geo-Thermal Systems Inc. v. Mai, No. 3112-08-ES, Labour Relations Board, April 9,
Here’s how human rights laws in each part of Canada define “family status”: FEDERAL: Not defined. ALBERTA: Being related to another person by blood, marriage or adoption [Alberta Human Rights Act, Sec. 44(1)(f)] BRITISH COLUMBIA: Not defined in statute. MANITOBA: Not defined in statute but government guidelines say it includes “being single, married, separated, divorced, remarried, common-law or widowed” as well as “being a parent, having children or dependents” and that “family relationships based on blood or marriage ties are also covered.” See, http://www.gov.mb.ca/hrc/english/publications/factsheets/prohib.html. NEW BRUNSWICK: Only jurisdiction that doesn’t specifically ban family discrimination. NEWFOUNDLAND/LABRADOR: Being in a parent and child relationship where "child"
A collective agreement allowed senior employees to “bump” into lower ranked positions to avoid a layoff. An employee with seniority wanted to bump to a lower position in one of the company’s offices nearer his home. The company wanted to bump him to a position at his current workplace. The court ruled that the employee had the right only to bump to a lower position, not to choose the site of that position. It noted that the agreement specifically gave the employer control over which locations employees worked [Hertz Canada Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175,
A new court ruling from Ontario sends an important message to employers in all parts of Canada: Consider employees’ emotional state when you negotiate severance packages with them. If you push the employee too hard to accept the deal, you might be found liable for acting “unconscionably.” Result: You may have to pay damages that far exceed what you saved by getting the employee to take the deal in the first place.
Loading ...
