[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Pay Calculation #98749

Yes, the second piece I linked to does. Just by searching gross wages calculated on the site I was able to find this PDF – look around! If you still have a specific question to a certain province that you cannot find an answer to, drop a line here.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Pay Calculation #98747

Here is a handy tool on how to calculate vacation pay and vacation pay requirements by province – take a minute to peruse the site, we have tons of resources for this!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Overtime start and end #98746

In Alberta, overtime is based on “hours of work,” and the key question with travel is whether that time is considered work. Not all travel qualifies. Time counts toward overtime only if the employee is performing duties, is required to travel as part of their job, or is under the employer’s control (for example, driving between job sites or working during travel).

Travel that is considered passive—such as commuting to a regular workplace, sitting on a plane, or waiting at an airport—generally does not count as work time under minimum standards. This means that, in most cases, simply travelling (even on a weekend) does not automatically trigger overtime unless the employee is actively working during that time.

In your example of Sunday travel to the airport and taking a flight, most of that time would not be considered work under Alberta law unless the employee is required to perform duties (e.g., making calls, preparing materials). As a result, overtime would typically not begin during that travel period based on minimum legal requirements alone.

However, employers have flexibility to go beyond the minimum standards, and many choose to compensate travel time for fairness and retention. A clear policy should define what counts as “work during travel,” how passive travel is treated, whether weekend travel is paid, and explicitly state which hours count toward overtime.

We’ve had similar questions about business travel policies and have available policies on this site about travel for and at work – check them out!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: payroll bi weekly semi monthly issues #98744

For a short-term (90-day) full-time contract, hourly is often the cleaner and lower-risk approach—especially if the role may involve any variability in hours, overtime, or schedule changes. Hourly pay ensures you’re automatically compliant with Alberta’s rules around overtime, general holiday pay, and accurate earnings tracking without needing to “reverse engineer” an equivalent hourly rate from a salary. It also aligns well with paying vacation pay out each period, which is common for short-term or temporary roles and avoids accrual/termination payout complexities at the end of the contract.

That said, salary can still make sense if the employee will work consistent, predictable hours with little to no overtime and you want a simpler, fixed compensation structure. The hesitation around salary for short contracts usually comes from administrative edge cases—prorating partial periods, ensuring compliance with minimum standards for hours worked, and handling any overtime that might arise. If those risks are minimal, salary isn’t inherently wrong—it just requires tighter controls.

In your case, hourly with vacation paid out semi-monthly is likely the most straightforward and defensible option. It keeps everything transparent, reduces compliance friction, and avoids cleanup at the end of the 90-day term. Salary could work, but it doesn’t offer a clear advantage unless there’s a strong operational reason for it.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee on Gradual Return to Regular working hours #98726

You can follow up to ask whether the absence is related to their accommodation, since you’re actively managing a return-to-work plan and need some clarity for scheduling. If it’s not related, it’s generally reasonable to remind them to follow your usual process for requesting vacation or personal time in advance. The key is to keep the tone neutral and focused on planning rather than discipline. That said, I’m not a lawyer — this is general guidance based on typical Canadian HR practices, so you may want to check with legal counsel if the situation becomes more complex or sensitive. An ongoing conversation like this is often a good sign that you need an HR department or legal counsel in place for your workplace.

Best of luck –
HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #98725

Yes, proceeding with termination immediately after receiving a medical note could expose you to a human rights complaint based on disability (or perceived disability), even if the termination is performance-based.

Once an employee provides a medical note, the employer is on notice of a potential disability. Under Canadian human rights law, you now have a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Terminating right after that disclosure can look like the medical issue was a factor—even if your intent is unrelated.

However, termination is still possible—but only if you can clearly demonstrate that:
-The decision was already made (or inevitable) before the medical leave.
-There is strong, well-documented evidence of performance issues and prior discipline (which you have).
-The harassment incident was investigated and substantiated.
-The employee was given a fair opportunity to improve and clear warning of termination risk.

Best practice approach:
Pause the termination while the employee is on leave.
Do not finalize or communicate termination during the leave unless there is urgent business justification and airtight documentation.
When they return, assess fitness to return and resume the PIP/disciplinary process.
If termination proceeds, ensure the rationale is clearly disconnected from the medical leave.

Key risk trigger to avoid:
Terminating because of absence or immediately after disclosure without demonstrating accommodation efforts.

I hope this helps.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination within probation period #98604

Important note: This situation involves potential exposure under BC employment law, human rights legislation, and WorkSafeBC prohibited action provisions. While the above guidance reflects best practices, you should consider having your response reviewed by an HR professional or employment lawyer to ensure it aligns with current case law and minimizes organizational risk.

You are in a generally defensible position, particularly given that the termination occurred during the probationary period, performance concerns predated the injury, and you made documented efforts to offer modified duties and communicate with the employee. From a risk-management standpoint, the primary areas of exposure are human rights (disability discrimination) and potential WorkSafeBC prohibited action claims, so your response should be carefully framed to show the decision was unrelated to the reported injury while avoiding overly definitive or defensive language.

It is important to maintain the position that this was a without-cause probationary termination, and avoid language that could be interpreted as justifying termination for cause. Performance and attendance concerns can be referenced as context, but the core message should be that the employment relationship was not progressing satisfactorily during probation. Overemphasizing misconduct or non-compliance may unintentionally invite a higher legal threshold or dispute.

When addressing the injury, use neutral and measured language that demonstrates reasonable efforts to accommodate without appearing dismissive. Emphasize that modified duties were offered and that attempts were made to communicate, while noting that no medical information was received to guide accommodation. Avoid framing this as the employee’s failure; instead, position it as a lack of information and engagement that limited your ability to proceed.

Keep the response concise, factual, and non-inflammatory. Avoid overly detailed timelines, emotionally charged language, or statements that could be perceived as argumentative. The tone should reflect a closed, professional position that does not invite further debate, while clearly documenting that the organization acted reasonably and in compliance with its obligations.

Overall, your approach is sound; the key refinement is ensuring the response is carefully worded to reinforce a probationary, without-cause decision, while demonstrating good-faith efforts around accommodation and minimizing risk related to human rights or WorkSafeBC considerations.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Jury Duty Leave #98502

If the meeting qualifies under your policy, the key factor is whether it overlaps with working hours: any portion that displaces scheduled work should be treated as paid leave, and the employee would still be entitled to take their separate 1-hour unpaid lunch later, whereas time that falls entirely within the unpaid lunch does not need to be paid. While an employee’s ability to choose the meeting time can be considered—particularly if they could reasonably schedule it outside working hours—the main priority is applying your policy consistently, so it’s generally safest to focus on whether work time is impacted rather than scrutinizing scheduling flexibility too closely.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Jury Duty Leave #98500

In Ontario, “jury duty leave” is addressed under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) as part of an employee’s right to take time off to perform civic duties. Specifically, the ESA provides job-protected leave for employees who are summoned for jury selection, serve on a jury, or are required to attend court as a witness. While the legislation guarantees reinstatement and protection from reprisal, it does not require employers to provide paid leave—so your policy offering 15 paid days is more generous than the statutory minimum. Importantly, the ESA language captures both jury service and being summoned or subpoenaed as a witness, without limiting it to matters involving the current employer.

Based on that, an employee who is subpoenaed as a witness for a matter involving a previous employer would still fall within the scope of ESA-protected leave, since the obligation arises from a legal summons rather than the nature of the employer involved. Your internal policy is actually broader and explicitly includes “attend as a witness by subpoena or summons,” which would reasonably cover this situation. As such, it is consistent—and defensible—to treat these absences as falling within your 15 paid days, regardless of whether the case relates to your organization or a prior employer.

With respect to pre-trial meetings, the key consideration is whether the employee is required to attend due to a legal obligation (e.g., subpoena, summons, or direction from legal counsel in preparation for testimony). If attendance is mandatory and directly tied to fulfilling their role as a witness, many employers interpret this as part of the same protected leave period, even if it occurs outside of formal court time. Since you have already treated the court dates themselves as falling under your policy, extending that treatment to required pre-trial preparation is the more consistent and lower-risk approach, particularly from an employee relations and policy interpretation standpoint.

Finally, if a pre-trial meeting occurs over the employee’s lunch hour or outside scheduled working hours, it generally would not require drawing from paid leave, since it does not result in lost work time. However, if it overlaps with working hours—even partially—it is reasonable to treat that time consistently with how you’ve handled other witness-related absences. Given you’ve already applied the policy to part of this situation, it would be more consistent (and arguably safer) to include the pre-trial meeting under the same leave rather than requiring vacation or other time off for that portion.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: payroll bi weekly semi monthly issues #98499

You’re right to question the tension here—Alberta’s Employment Standards Code requires that employees be paid within 10 consecutive days after the end of each pay period. This effectively limits how far “in arrears” an employer can operate. With a semi-monthly schedule (e.g., pay periods ending on the 15th and last day of the month), organizations can still pay in arrears, but only by a few days—not weeks. In practice, many employers set a short lag (e.g., 3–7 days) between the period end and pay date to allow for payroll processing while staying within the 10-day rule. A longer arrears model (like holding a full extra pay cycle behind) would not be compliant in Alberta.

Biweekly payroll is often preferred because it naturally aligns better with the 10-day requirement while giving payroll teams a predictable processing window (e.g., period ends on a Friday, pay the following week). It’s true this increases payroll frequency compared to semi-monthly, but it reduces compliance risk and administrative strain caused by tight turnaround times. That said, semi-monthly can still work compliantly—you just need efficient cutoffs, possibly estimating and adjusting variable earnings, and tight payroll processing timelines.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Duty to Inquire #98444

Hi Aleesha,

I appreciate you reaching out to us. Situations involving alcohol use in the workplace are generally handled as a combination of HR, workplace safety, and organizational policy considerations. The appropriate response can vary depending on factors like the nature of the role, safety risks, company policies, and any applicable employment or human rights obligations.

Because of those variables, it’s important that these situations are assessed based on your organization’s policies and in consultation with a qualified HR professional or legal advisor, especially if there are potential safety concerns or disciplinary implications.

From a general best-practice perspective, employers should ensure they have clear policies in place regarding impairment at work and follow consistent, documented procedures when concerns arise.

If you don’t currently have HR support, this may be a good time to consult with an HR professional to ensure you’re handling the situation appropriately and compliantly. You have submitted quite a few inquiries over the past couple of months and I want to remind you that I am not a licensed lawyer and this resource is not a suitable replacement for a Human Resources team at your job site.

Let me know if you’re looking for general resources or policy guidance—I’m happy to point you in the right direction.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Accrual during STD/LTD #98404

Yes, statutory vacation entitlement generally continues to accrue during LTD, and it is difficult to stop accrual of the minimum statutory vacation time while the employment relationship continues. When the employee eventually returns to work, the statutory vacation time technically still exists, but employment standards legislation usually allows some flexibility in scheduling vacation, since employers ultimately control when vacation is taken (subject to minimum standards). Practically, employers often work with the returning employee to schedule the accrued vacation over time, rather than requiring all of it immediately. However, the statutory minimum vacation generally cannot be waived by the employee, because employment standards minimums cannot be contracted out of. In other words, even if the employee prefers not to take it, the employer typically must still provide the minimum vacation entitlement.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Overtime #98391

For hours below the statutory overtime threshold (e.g., 36–44 hours in Ontario), the legislation generally treats these as regular hours, so there is more flexibility. You can set a policy that these hours are banked as time off in lieu at 1:1 rather than paid out, provided employees agree to the arrangement and are ultimately compensated for the time worked. In this situation, you typically do not have to offer a choice between pay and time off—it can be structured as the employer’s policy—as long as it is clearly communicated and acknowledged by employees.

For statutory overtime hours, the rules are stricter. Provinces such as Ontario allow overtime to be taken as time off in lieu only if there is a written agreement with the employee, and the time must be credited at 1.5 hours for each overtime hour worked and used within the legislated timelines. The legislation generally requires the employee’s written agreement to bank overtime, but it does not necessarily require the employer to offer both options (pay or lieu) each time overtime occurs. An employer can have a policy that overtime is banked as lieu time, provided employees have agreed in writing.

If some employees decline to agree to banking overtime, then overtime generally must be paid out in wages instead. In other words, you can implement a policy that defaults to lieu time, but employees must voluntarily agree to it, and if someone does not agree, you would need to pay overtime instead. From a practical standpoint, many employers implement a written overtime/lieu-time agreement as part of the policy acknowledgment so that the arrangement applies consistently unless an employee opts out.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Overtime #98389

Yes — those hours still have to be compensated, but they do not necessarily have to be paid in wages if you and the employee agree to bank them as time off in lieu.

Employment standards legislation in Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec requires employees to be paid for all hours worked, but it does not require that compensation be in cash if there is a lawful time-banking arrangement. The statutory rules around overtime banking (e.g., written agreement and 1.5× credit) apply specifically to hours that qualify as overtime under the legislation. For hours below the overtime threshold (such as 36–44 hours in Ontario when overtime starts at 44), the legislation generally treats them as regular hours, so employers have more flexibility in how they structure compensation, provided the employee ultimately receives equivalent paid time off or wages.

In practice, this means you could implement a policy where hours worked beyond your standard 35-hour work week but below the provincial overtime threshold are banked as time off at a 1:1 rate, provided employees agree to the arrangement. Many employers structure this as “flex time” or “time-in-lieu of extra hours” rather than overtime banking. The important distinction is that once statutory overtime thresholds are reached, the stricter rules apply (including 1.5× credit and written agreement requirements, as well as provincial timelines for using the banked overtime).

From a policy perspective, it is best to clearly separate the two categories:

1. Extra hours (36–OT threshold) → may be banked at 1:1 or paid as regular hours according to policy.

2. Statutory overtime hours → must follow provincial overtime rules, including 1.5× compensation and legislated timelines for taking lieu time.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Overtime #98386

Because your standard work week is 35 hours, but statutory overtime thresholds are higher (e.g., 44 hours in Ontario), employment standards legislation generally does not require any premium compensation for hours worked between 36 hours and the provincial overtime threshold. Those hours are simply considered regular hours under employment standards. As a result, providing time off in lieu at a 1:1 rate for hours between 36 and the overtime threshold is a policy choice rather than a legal requirement. The key requirement is that once an employee exceeds the provincial overtime threshold, the time must be compensated at 1.5× pay or 1.5 hours of paid time off in lieu for each overtime hour.

Regarding travel outside regular working hours, whether it must be counted as work time depends on the circumstances (for example, whether the employee is required to travel for work rather than commuting). If the travel counts as work under employment standards rules, it should be included when calculating weekly hours toward the overtime threshold. However, there is no requirement to provide a premium rate for those hours unless they push the employee past the applicable overtime threshold.

For time off in lieu of overtime, provincial employment standards generally require a written agreement with the employee, and the banked time must be credited at the appropriate rate (typically 1.5 hours for each overtime hour). Legislation also sets timelines for when this time must be used—for example, in Ontario it must generally be taken within three months of the week it was earned, or within up to 12 months if the employee agrees in writing. Because of these statutory limits, employers cannot replace them with their own shorter expiry rules, though they may set reasonable internal processes for scheduling and using lieu time within those legislated periods.

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts