[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: MSS registration — Canadian company with a remote employee in Mexico #108706

This is an area where I would be cautious about concluding that no Mexican entity or payroll means no IMSS registration. Mexico’s Social Security Law generally makes employees who provide remunerated, personal and subordinate services subject to mandatory IMSS coverage, and the IMSS’s own guidance describes employers as having registration and worker-enrolment obligations. The IMSS also expressly contemplates foreign legal entities with an establishment in Mexico registering as employers, which suggests that Mexican presence can be relevant, but it does not by itself answer the increasingly common situation of a Canadian employer with no Mexican entity or establishment and an employee working remotely from Mexico. In other words, I would not treat the absence of a Mexican entity/payroll as sufficient evidence that IMSS registration is unnecessary; the answer can depend on the employee’s status, the employer’s Mexican presence, and how the employment is structured.

For authoritative confirmation, I would start with the IMSS employer-registration/“Alta Patronal” guidance and then obtain a written determination or professional Mexican employment/social-security opinion for the specific fact pattern. The IMSS’s employer-registration page is here: IMSS – Alta Patronal and Registration in Occupational Risk Insurance. The IMSS also provides a Contact Centre at 800-623-2323 for questions about its procedures and obligations. For your WorkSafeBC compliance exercise, I would document the conclusion specifically as “Canadian employer, no Mexican entity, no Mexican payroll, employee physically working remotely from Mexico”, rather than simply recording “no Mexican operations.”

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Pier Diem Policy #108696

Hi! Here is our employee expense policy which outlines per diem rates and how often to review them. We also have a “know the laws” for travel and a moving expenses/reimbursement policy.

I hope this helps.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: unpaid medical leave #108684

At this stage, I would not treat this as job abandonment yet, particularly because the employee remains on an approved medical leave with an expected return date of October 8. In Alberta, eligible employees can take up to 27 weeks of job-protected long-term illness and injury leave per calendar year, and an employer generally cannot terminate an employee because they are exercising that leave. Employees are expected to provide an estimated return date and advise the employer if it changes.

The lack of response is still something you can address. An employee on medical leave is not completely relieved of their obligation to communicate with the employer. Alberta Human Rights guidance specifically recognizes that employers may maintain reasonable contact during a lengthy medical absence, and employees also have an obligation to cooperate in the accommodation process. Alberta Human Rights Commission Given that you have already sent three emails and made a phone call, I would now send one formal written communication—ideally by email plus registered mail/courier to the employee’s address on file. Keep the tone administrative rather than disciplinary. Confirm that their approved medical leave currently runs to October 8, explain that you have been unable to reach them, and ask them to contact you by a reasonable deadline to confirm: whether they still expect to return October 8; whether their medical leave needs to be extended; and what they want to do about benefit continuation/premium payments. You can also advise that updated medical information will be required if they cannot return as anticipated. Alberta employers may request medical information confirming the approximate return-to-work date and, on return, information about fitness and any restrictions or accommodation needs.

I would be cautious about putting language in that letter saying that failure to respond automatically means they have resigned. Instead, explain the consequences more narrowly: if you receive no response and they do not report for work on October 8 (or their next scheduled working day), you will need to assess their employment status based on the information available. Alberta’s Employment Standards guidance is particularly helpful here: an employer is not required to reinstate an employee who fails to provide the required notice or fails to report to work on their next scheduled day after the leave ends, unless that failure resulted from unforeseeable or unpreventable circumstances. Alberta.ca Even then, because you already know the absence is medical, I would make at least one additional attempt after a no-show before concluding abandonment—for example, “You did not return as expected. Please contact us by [date] to advise whether there are medical circumstances preventing your return.” That helps protect against a situation where hospitalization, deterioration of the condition, or another disability-related circumstance explains the silence.

On the benefits issue, Alberta Employment Standards does not generally require an employer to continue paying wages or benefits during long-term illness and injury leave unless the employment contract, collective agreement, benefit plan, or another obligation provides otherwise. Alberta.ca Therefore, if your plan permits benefits to continue only where the employee pays their required portion, you can give them a clear deadline and explain what happens if payment is not received, provided you are following the plan terms consistently. I would keep that issue separate from whether they have abandoned employment: non-payment of premiums may result in benefit coverage ending under the plan, but it does not by itself mean that the employee has resigned.
So, for now, I would document your three emails and phone attempt, send the formal “return-to-work/status confirmation” letter, and keep the employment relationship open through October 8 unless the employee contacts you with different information. If October 8 passes with no communication and no attendance, move into a second, shorter “failure to return/contact us immediately” notice before making a final abandonment determination. Given the medical context, that paper trail is much safer than moving directly from non-responsiveness during leave to termination.

I hope this helps.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: aggressive leader #108652

I would treat this as information that warrants a formal preliminary assessment, even though the survey was anonymous and there is no identified complainant. The comment is more than a general statement that someone is difficult to work with: it alleges repeated bullying/aggressive conduct, yelling at staff, employees being afraid to speak up, and conduct personally experienced and witnessed by the respondent. An employer can become obligated to respond to potential harassment or workplace misconduct once it has reasonable knowledge of the concern; a named complainant is not always necessary before taking action. The fact that the allegation concerns a senior leader also supports handling it carefully and independently.

First, preserve the survey response exactly as received and review whether there are any other comments, exit interview notes, HR concerns, complaints, turnover patterns, or previous reports involving similar behaviour. This should not become an exercise in trying to identify the anonymous respondent. Rather, HR should determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to justify further inquiry. Here, there are potentially identifiable settings — meetings and interactions with current and former Client Services staff — that could allow the organization to investigate the alleged behaviour without knowing who submitted the survey.

The next step could be a preliminary fact-finding process rather than immediately framing the matter as a substantiated harassment complaint. An appropriate HR representative or external investigator could confidentially interview a reasonable cross-section of current Client Services employees and others who regularly attend meetings with the senior leader. Questions should be neutral and open-ended, such as asking about the leader’s communication style, how disagreements are handled, whether employees have witnessed yelling, intimidation or aggressive behaviour, and whether employees feel comfortable raising concerns. Avoid telling witnesses that an anonymous employee has accused the leader of “bullying,” as that can unnecessarily influence their evidence.

If the preliminary inquiries produce corroborating information — particularly examples of yelling, intimidation, humiliation, repeated aggressive treatment or employees being afraid to raise concerns — I would move to a formal workplace investigation and provide the senior leader with sufficient particulars of the allegations and a fair opportunity to respond. Because the respondent is a senior leader, consider using an external investigator or someone sufficiently independent of that leader’s reporting structure. The organization should also be alert to reprisal: employees who participate in interviews should be reminded that retaliation or attempts to determine who made the survey comment will not be tolerated.

Finally, avoid concluding either that this is “just management style” or that bullying has occurred until the evidence is examined. A demanding, direct or unpopular manager is not automatically engaging in workplace harassment, but repeated yelling, humiliation, intimidation or conduct that causes employees to fear speaking up can cross that line. Even if the evidence ultimately does not meet the organization’s legal or policy definition of harassment, the investigation may reveal a leadership or psychological-safety issue requiring coaching, behavioural expectations, monitoring or other corrective action. Document why HR decided to investigate, the steps taken, the evidence considered and the outcome, particularly because the original concern arose anonymously.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Retention Records #108633

Assuming you are referring to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), there are a few different retention periods being blended together. The ESA does not establish a general rule that all former employee files must be retained for seven years. Most core ESA records—such as an employee’s name, address and employment start date—must be kept for three years after employment ends, while hours-of-work records generally must be kept for three years after the applicable day or week. Vacation time and vacation pay records have a longer five-year retention period. As of January 1, 2026, employers with 25 or more employees also have to retain copies of publicly advertised job postings and associated application forms for three years after the posting is removed, as well as prescribed information provided to interviewed applicants for three years.
The seven-year period you may have seen is more likely either an organization’s conservative HR retention practice or a rule applying to a particular type of record. For example, under Ontario’s Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, certain records concerning foreign nationals must be retained for seven years. CRA records, including payroll-related financial records, generally have to be maintained for six years from the end of the tax year to which they relate. For that reason, organizations sometimes adopt a blanket “seven years after termination” personnel-file rule administratively, but that is not the general ESA minimum.

If the employee has died
I would not shorten the retention period because the employee has died. Death ends the employment relationship, so where an ESA rule runs from the date the employee “ceased to be employed,” that date would ordinarily become the starting point for the applicable retention period. In other words, if an employee dies while employed, retain records for the same statutory period you would following any other termination of employment. Records with their own retention trigger—such as vacation records, leave documentation, payroll/tax records, or litigation-related material—should continue to follow that particular rule. If there is an outstanding estate matter, insurance claim, WSIB claim, human-rights issue, lawsuit or other dispute, I would also place a legal hold on potentially relevant records rather than destroying them when the normal retention period expires.

Volunteers and recruitment records
Volunteers are different because the ESA generally regulates employees, so I would not automatically apply the new ESA job-posting retention requirement to a genuine unpaid volunteer recruitment campaign. However, I would recommend adopting a parallel volunteer recruitment process as an HR best practice. The Ontario Human Rights Commission takes the position that the Human Rights Code can apply to volunteers and other unpaid workers in a work-like relationship, including recruitment and selection. This means volunteer applications, interviews and screening should be handled using essentially the same non-discriminatory principles as employee recruitment.

A practical volunteer recruitment retention standard would be:
-keep the volunteer posting/role description, applications, interview notes, scoring or selection rationale and screening documentation for a consistent defined period, commonly 2–3 years;
-retain the successful volunteer’s relevant onboarding records for the duration of the volunteer relationship plus the organization’s chosen post-service retention period;
-collect only information genuinely needed for the volunteer role, especially where vulnerable-sector checks, driver’s licences or other screening is involved;
-keep medical, accommodation, criminal-record and other sensitive information separately and restrict access;
-use consistent interview questions and documented selection criteria tied to the essential functions of the volunteer role; and
-securely destroy information once the retention purpose has expired, unless litigation, an investigation, insurance requirements or another legal obligation requires it to be preserved.

The OHRC expressly cautions organizations against allowing Code-protected characteristics to influence decisions about volunteer opportunities and recognizes volunteers within its broad interpretation of employment protections.
For an Ontario organization, I would therefore build a retention schedule with separate categories rather than one blanket period: employee recruitment records – 3 years where the 2026 ESA provisions apply; statutory employee records – generally 3 years; vacation records – 5 years; payroll/tax records – at least 6 years as applicable; internal former-employee personnel files – whatever longer defensible period the organization adopts, often 7 years; and volunteer recruitment records – an internally established period such as 3 years. Death of an employee would not, by itself, change those periods.

Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: short term illness alberta #108585

For an Alberta employee who is receiving weekly indemnity or short-term illness benefits, a general holiday may still create a separate entitlement under Alberta Employment Standards. If the holiday falls on what would normally be a regular workday and the employee otherwise qualifies for general holiday pay, the medical absence itself does not automatically remove that entitlement.

However, whether the employee receives general holiday pay from the employer instead of the weekly indemnity benefit for that day will usually depend on the wording of the weekly indemnity or STD plan. Many plans include coordination or offset provisions so that an employee does not receive both full disability benefits and full wages for the same day.

The safest approach is to confirm the employee’s eligibility for Alberta general holiday pay, calculate the required holiday entitlement, and then review the benefit plan for any provisions dealing with statutory holidays, employer-paid wages, or offsets. The employee should receive at least their minimum statutory entitlement, but you should avoid automatically paying both benefits without checking the plan.

If the plan is insurer-administered, I would also confirm the insurer’s treatment of general holidays during a disability period, as the insurer may expect that day to be excluded from the weekly indemnity payment if the employer is paying general holiday pay.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: work from home accommodation #108581

Now knowing that the employee is in Alberta, I would treat the physician’s four-month work-from-home recommendation as the beginning of the accommodation process rather than automatically as the final accommodation. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, the employer has a duty to accommodate disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship. You can request sufficient medical information to understand the employee’s functional limitations, restrictions, expected duration and accommodation needs, but you generally should not require the employee to disclose their diagnosis or unnecessary medical details. Since a traditional FAF may be more focused on appointment attendance and scheduling flexibility, I would consider using a targeted medical abilities/accommodation form instead.

The form could ask whether the employee has restrictions that prevent or limit their ability to attend the workplace, whether they can perform the essential duties of their position while working from home, whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether alternatives such as hybrid work, flexible hours or time away for appointments would address the restrictions, whether there are any commuting-related restrictions, and the expected duration of the restrictions. I would also meet with the employee to understand the barriers they are experiencing and discuss potential options. The fact that their physician recommended WFH does not necessarily mean WFH is the only accommodation the employer must provide; however, the employer should not simply reject the recommendation or substitute its own opinion for the medical information. The accommodation process should be collaborative, with both the employer and employee participating in identifying an effective and reasonable solution.

For consistency and fairness, I recommend documenting the request, medical information received, clarification requested, accommodation options considered and the final decision. Medical information should be kept confidential and separate from the employee’s regular personnel information, with the manager receiving only the information necessary to implement the accommodation. You should also establish clear expectations around duties, availability, communication and performance while the accommodation is in place, and set a review date before the four-month period expires. In this situation, I would generally avoid immediately refusing the WFH request; instead, consider implementing it temporarily while obtaining the necessary functional information and determining whether full-time WFH is required or whether another effective accommodation would meet the employee’s needs. This approach supports the employer’s duty to accommodate while ensuring that the accommodation is appropriate, individualized and regularly reviewed.

The process is similar to Ontario, but I just wanted to point out the main distinctions for your case. Let me know if you have any other questions!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: work from home accommodation #108567

Assuming this employee is in Ontario, I would treat the doctor’s four-month WFH recommendation as the start of the accommodation process, not necessarily the final answer. You should generally accept the medical need in good faith, but you are entitled to obtain enough functional information to understand why WFH is required, whether other accommodations could meet the same restrictions, and how the employee can continue performing the essential duties of the role. The OHRC specifically says employers should focus on functional limitations and accommodation needs rather than diagnosis, symptoms or treatment details.

A traditional FAF may be broader than necessary if the real issue is appointments, scheduling flexibility, or the ability to work remotely. Instead, I would send a short, targeted accommodation questionnaire for the physician. For example, ask whether the employee has disability-related restrictions affecting their ability to attend the workplace; whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether hybrid work, flexible start/end times, intermittent time away for appointments, modified hours, or another arrangement would satisfy the restrictions; the expected duration; whether there are restrictions on travel or commuting; and whether the employee can perform the essential duties of their position while accommodated. You should not ask for the diagnosis unless there is an unusual and demonstrable reason that the accommodation cannot otherwise be assessed. The OHRC expressly supports targeted questions of this type where an employer needs to distinguish between options such as working from home, flexible hours, job modification or leave.

I would also meet with the employee before deciding. Explain that you are not challenging their physician’s medical opinion; you are trying to identify the accommodation that appropriately addresses their functional needs. Ask what barriers they experience with on-site work, what flexibility is needed around appointments, and whether there are alternatives that would work for them. Be particularly careful not to say, “We don’t think you need to work from home.” The employer can explore reasonable alternatives, but should not simply substitute its own assessment for medical evidence.

For fairness, I recommend using a consistent accommodation process rather than focusing on whether other employees are allowed to work from home. Accommodation is individualized, so two employees can legitimately receive different arrangements.
Your process should include:
documenting the request,
medical information received,
questions asked,
options considered and
final decision;
using the same functional-information standard for comparable accommodation requests;
restricting medical information to HR or others who genuinely need it and keeping it separate from the employee’s ordinary personnel records;
telling the manager only what they need to implement the accommodation, such as “WFH approved until January 15” or “flexible scheduling permitted for medical appointments,” rather than providing medical details;
establishing performance, availability, communication and attendance expectations that remain applicable during the accommodation;
setting a review date before the four months expire rather than allowing the arrangement to simply continue indefinitely; and
paying reasonable costs associated with medical information that you specifically require for the accommodation process.

In your situation, I would temporarily implement the WFH arrangement while you obtain clarification, unless there is a genuine operational or safety reason that makes that impossible. Then assess whether four months of full WFH is the appropriate accommodation or whether, for example, flexible hours plus appointment time, a hybrid arrangement, or another measure fully addresses the medical restrictions. The legal obligation is to provide an effective accommodation to the point of undue hardship; the employee does not necessarily have an absolute right to their preferred accommodation, but the employer must actively investigate appropriate options rather than simply rejecting the physician’s recommendation. You should also create an accommodation plan once settled on an arrangement.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Document filing -best practices #108557

Your current approach is generally the better one. I would not automatically place the spouse’s email, or the Head of School’s response to the spouse, directly in the employee’s regular personnel file simply because the spouse is connected to the employee. The spouse is not the employee, and the communication is primarily a parent/school interaction. However, because your Dual Role Policy makes family conduct relevant to the employee relationship, HR has a legitimate reason to preserve the correspondence where it could become relevant to administering that policy.

I would maintain a separate, confidential Employee Relations/Incident file associated with the employee, much as you are doing now. For example: HR > Employee Relations/Incidents > [Employee Name] > Dual Role Policy – Family Communications. Save the relevant correspondence there along with a brief factual note identifying the date, who communicated with whom, the applicable policy provision, and why HR retained the record. Avoid characterizations such as “hostile spouse” or “problem family”; document observable facts and the policy connection instead. Access should be limited to HR and others with a genuine need to know. Limiting access to personnel-related information is also consistent with general privacy and records-management principles.

I would distinguish the supporting documentation from anything that eventually becomes part of the employee’s formal employment record. If the spouse receives one reminder and nothing further happens, I would leave the correspondence in the incident/employee-relations folder. If, however, the employee is later formally counselled, warned, or disciplined under the Dual Role Policy because of an ongoing situation involving their family, then the formal document issued to the employee—for example, a letter of expectations or written warning—could appropriately go in the employee’s personnel file. The underlying spouse emails can remain in the separate case file as supporting documentation. That approach keeps the personnel file from becoming a repository for every complaint or allegation while still preserving the evidence supporting an employment decision.

One additional consideration is student/family privacy. Because this is a school, these communications could contain information about the employee’s child, other students, teachers, or other parents. Retain only what is reasonably necessary for the HR purpose and avoid duplicating sensitive information unnecessarily. Records-management guidance generally supports restricting access according to need and protecting records throughout their lifecycle. I would also consider adding a short records-management provision to your Dual Role Policy or HR procedure stating that concerns involving employee-family conduct may be documented in a confidential employee-relations file and, where employment action results, the relevant employment documentation may be retained in the employee’s personnel file.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation for an employee who works in one province but lives in another #108432

Generally, yes. For provincially regulated employees in Canada, the applicable employment standards are usually determined primarily by where the employee actually performs their work, rather than where they live. This means that if an employee resides in Province A but works full time at an employer’s workplace in Province B, the vacation standards of Province B will normally apply, including its minimum vacation time and vacation pay requirements.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Safety-Sensitive Position: Alcohol Use, Fitness for Duty & Duty to Inquire #108405

Because this employee operates a cement mixer on public roads, I would treat the position as clearly safety-sensitive and address the situation primarily as a fitness-for-duty issue—not as misconduct or an assumption that the employee has an alcohol-use disorder. In BC, WorkSafeBC requires employers not to assign workers to activities where a reported or observed impairment may create undue risk, and not to knowingly permit a person to remain at a workplace where alcohol or another substance affects their ability to work safely. The following approach would be reasonable, although given the driving/public-safety and housing components, I would have BC employment counsel review the actual steps and correspondence before significant discipline, testing, or termination.

1. Is the information sufficient to temporarily remove him from safety-sensitive duties?

In my view, yes, there is enough information to justify a precautionary, temporary removal from driving and other safety-sensitive duties while you investigate fitness for duty, particularly given the combination of the alleged consumption level, the reports of intoxicated contact with the dispatcher, the incident involving being slumped over a steering wheel, and the extraordinary consequences if a cement-truck driver is impaired or significantly fatigued. WorkSafeBC expressly says an employer must not assign a worker to activities where reported or observed impairment may create an undue risk.

I would characterize the removal as non-disciplinary and precautionary, not a finding that he is an alcoholic or has attended work impaired. If alternative non-safety-sensitive work is reasonably available, consider it; otherwise a short paid administrative leave while obtaining appropriate information is generally lower-risk than an unpaid suspension based predominantly on unverified allegations.

2. Has the duty to inquire been triggered?

I believe you should proceed on the basis that the duty to inquire may have been triggered. Addiction is recognized as a disability for human rights purposes, and the BC Human Rights Tribunal says an employer must inquire where it knows or reasonably ought to know that there may be a relationship between concerning workplace conduct and a protected characteristic before taking adverse action. The employee does not necessarily have to use the words “I have an addiction” before that obligation arises.

That does not mean you must conclude that he has an alcohol-use disorder. It means you should give him an appropriate opportunity to disclose whether there is a medical, disability, dependency or other health-related issue affecting his ability to safely perform his work before moving into discipline or termination.

3. How should the initial conversation be approached?

Meet privately with the employee, preferably with two management representatives present. Focus on safety and fitness for duty rather than consumption or diagnosis. Explain that information has come to management’s attention that raises concerns about whether he can safely perform a safety-sensitive driving role, including reports of significant alcohol consumption and specific incidents involving apparent intoxication. Give him a meaningful opportunity to respond and ask whether there is any health, medical, dependency or other issue that could affect his ability to safely perform his duties or for which he may require workplace accommodation.

Avoid statements such as “we know you’re an alcoholic,” “you drink 30 beers every night,” or “you have a drinking problem.” You can put the substance of credible allegations to him, but distinguish clearly between reported information and established facts and avoid unnecessarily identifying coworkers who provided information. Also make clear that the concern is not lawful off-duty alcohol consumption by itself—it is the potential impact on fitness for safety-sensitive duties.

4. What medical information can you reasonably request?

If the employee identifies a medical, dependency or health-related issue (or if sufficient uncertainty remains about his ability to drive safely), you can reasonably request fitness-for-duty information from an appropriate healthcare professional. The request should describe the essential duties and hazards of the job and ask whether he is medically fit to safely operate commercial/heavy vehicles, whether there are functional restrictions or limitations, their expected duration, whether accommodation is required, and when his fitness should be reassessed.

Generally, you should not ask for complete medical records or more diagnostic detail than is reasonably necessary. BC privacy principles require employers to limit medical information collection to what is reasonably required for the employment purpose, while the Human Rights Tribunal recognizes that employers may need information about condition, prognosis, capabilities, restrictions and limitations to discharge the accommodation obligation.

5. Is fitness-for-duty assessment or D&A testing appropriate?

A formal fitness-for-duty assessment is the stronger first step here. Given the position, you could provide an occupational physician or other appropriately qualified practitioner with the job demands and the factual safety concerns and ask for an opinion about fitness to perform safety-sensitive work. If there is a suspected substance-use disorder, an occupational/addiction medicine assessment may be more useful than simply requesting a generic doctor’s note saying the employee is “fit.”

Drug and alcohol testing is more legally sensitive. Canadian law recognizes reasonable-cause and post-incident testing in appropriate safety-sensitive circumstances, but testing represents a significant privacy intrusion. The Supreme Court has distinguished reasonable-cause testing from broad random testing, emphasizing the need for an appropriate safety justification. The reports of heavy off-duty drinking alone would not automatically justify testing on any particular morning. If there are contemporaneous indicators—smell of alcohol, slurred speech, abnormal coordination, unusual behaviour, an accident/near miss, etc.—reasonable-cause testing may be much more defensible, particularly where you already have a properly drafted D&A policy. I would obtain legal advice before ordering testing based solely on the information currently available.

6. How should the residential/site-security arrangement be handled?

Separate the employee’s private residential status from his security duties. If he is expected to provide security, respond to incidents, drive, patrol, or otherwise perform work while “on duty” as site security, he must be fit to safely perform those functions. You could therefore temporarily remove him from the security component as well, or establish clearly defined duty periods during which he must remain fit for duty. Being permitted to consume alcohol while genuinely off duty in his residence is a different issue and should not automatically become employment misconduct merely because the residence happens to be company-owned.

I would not terminate the housing arrangement simply because you suspect alcohol dependency. Review the housing agreement separately. BC’s Residential Tenancy Act specifically addresses employer-provided housing and permits an employer to end certain employment-linked tenancies when employment has actually ended, subject to prescribed notice requirements; it does not mean an employer can simply remove an employee from their residence because safety duties have temporarily been suspended. Given that rent is being reduced in exchange for security services, I would also have counsel review whether the arrangement creates separate employment standards, tenancy, on-call/working-time and working-alone issues.

7. What immediate safety steps should be taken?

Until the concern has been reasonably addressed, I would not allow him to operate the cement mixer or perform other high-consequence safety-sensitive duties where there is a reasonable concern about fitness. WorkSafeBC’s rules place obligations on both the employee and employer: workers must report impairments affecting safe performance, and employers cannot assign impaired workers to work creating undue risk. If he reports to work displaying signs of impairment, do not let him drive himself home; arrange safe transportation and document the observable indicators.

At the same time, avoid discipline merely for suspected addiction or for lawful off-duty drinking. Your immediate decisions should consistently be framed around present safety risk, fitness for duty and obtaining sufficient information, followed by accommodation if a disability is identified. Safety may ultimately limit the accommodations available in a commercial-driving position, but that conclusion should follow an individualized assessment rather than be assumed in advance.

8. What documentation and next steps would you recommend?

Before meeting with him, prepare a confidential chronology identifying what was reported, by whom, when, whether the information was firsthand or hearsay, the approximate dates of the dispatcher/vehicle incidents, and any direct observations by supervisors. Gather the employee’s job description, commercial-driving requirements, security responsibilities, employment agreement, housing agreement, D&A/fitness-for-duty policies, previous safety incidents and any applicable collective agreement. Do not turn the bags of cans alone into “proof” of his personal consumption; the evidentiary value is limited unless you can establish who consumed the alcohol.

I would then: temporarily restrict the safety-sensitive duties; conduct the non-disciplinary duty-to-inquire meeting; document his response; provide a carefully drafted fitness-for-duty medical request if warranted; and reassess once you receive the medical information. I would hold off on discipline, termination, eviction or compulsory D&A testing until that initial process is completed, unless he actually reports impaired or another immediate incident occurs. Given the unusually significant public-safety exposure here, having BC counsel review the FFD request and any proposed testing decision before implementation would be particularly advisable.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: years of service #108401

I think your approach is reasonable, particularly given that the employee’s previous employment period ended and an ROE was issued, followed by a later rehire. In that situation, I would generally not change the HRIS “original hire date” to the employee’s historical start date simply to make the system display nine years of service. Doing so could create confusion about the employee’s actual employment history and could potentially make the HRIS inconsistent with the ROE and other payroll records. The fact that the employee received severance when their previous employment ended is also an important distinction to preserve in your records.

A good best practice would be to maintain the employee’s current HRIS service date based on their rehire date, while maintaining a separate internal record that clearly identifies their recognized service for purposes where previous service is credited. This could be a note in the employee’s personnel file, a service-date adjustment record, or another HR tracking document showing the original employment dates, termination date, rehire date, and the circumstances under which previous service is being recognized. You have already adjusted the vacation entitlement so that the employee receives the appropriate benefit based on their recognized service, which is arguably more important than having the HRIS display a particular number.

I would also consider whether the HRIS has a custom field, employee note, secondary service date, seniority date, or reporting field that could be used to distinguish “continuous employment date” from “recognized service date.” If it does not, you could establish a standardized internal practice for situations like this. For example, the system could show “5 years” based on the current employment record, while HR’s confidential records identify “9 years recognized service for vacation/benefit purposes.” If other employees can see the HRIS service date, I would be particularly cautious about changing it to nine years because it could imply nine years of continuous employment when that isn’t actually the employee’s current period of employment.

The main thing I would recommend is consistency and documentation. If the organization has determined that previous service continues to be recognized for particular purposes, document exactly what is being recognized and for which benefits, rather than trying to make the HRIS solve something it technically cannot accommodate. You can also explain to the employee that the HRIS is displaying their current employment record and cannot reproduce historical employment periods, but their recognized service has been separately recorded and is being used when calculating applicable entitlements. If there are legal or contractual requirements concerning how the break in service, severance, vacation entitlement, or seniority must be treated, however, I would have employment counsel confirm the approach for your jurisdiction rather than relying solely on the HRIS configuration.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: supervisor and employee issues #108399

It would be reasonable to meet with the senior leader and listen carefully to the concerns before determining whether a formal harassment investigation is warranted. The fact that you personally have not witnessed inappropriate conduct is useful context, but it does not necessarily mean that the employee’s concerns should be dismissed. Your meeting should focus on obtaining specific examples: what was said or done, when and where it occurred, who was present, how frequently it has happened, whether there were witnesses or documentation, and how the behaviour has affected the employee. It is also important to distinguish between unpopular management decisions, legitimate performance feedback or criticism, and conduct that crosses the line into harassment, bullying or intimidation.

Based on what you have described, it may be appropriate to explain that not every difficult or uncomfortable workplace interaction constitutes harassment. A supervisor can make unpopular decisions, allocate resources differently, provide constructive criticism and hold employees accountable. However, the manner in which those things are communicated matters. If the employee is describing a recurring pattern of belittling, threats, humiliation, intimidation or other unreasonable conduct, that could warrant further assessment even if individual incidents might not appear particularly serious in isolation. In particular, I would take the concern about psychological safety seriously rather than focusing solely on whether the conduct technically meets the definition of harassment.

If, after your meeting, the concerns appear to involve primarily communication style or interpersonal conflict rather than harassment, an informal intervention could be a reasonable first step—provided the senior leader genuinely feels comfortable and safe having that conversation. You might recommend a structured conversation focused on specific behaviours and their impact rather than accusing the supervisor of harassment. For example, the senior leader could explain that certain interactions have felt intimidating or patronizing and identify what communication approach would be more productive. Depending on the circumstances, coaching, facilitated discussion or leadership training could also be appropriate. I would document the concerns raised, the steps you took to assess them, and any recommendations or follow-up.

The fact that the supervisor is also your CEO does create an additional complication because of the potential conflict of interest and power imbalance. I would avoid putting yourself in the position of independently determining that there is no harassment simply because you have not personally observed it. If the employee provides allegations that are specific, serious, repeated, or potentially meet the applicable workplace-harassment definition, it would be prudent to have someone independent assess the situation rather than having you investigate your own supervisor. Even if a formal investigation is not warranted, maintaining appropriate documentation and following up with the senior leader later can help demonstrate that the concern was taken seriously.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is general workplace/HR guidance rather than legal advice. If there are concerns that the conduct could constitute workplace harassment, psychological harassment, reprisal, discrimination, or another legal issue—or if a formal investigation may be required—it is best for the person responsible for handling the matter to seek advice from qualified legal counsel before proceeding.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: LTD Obligations #108393

Assuming this is an Ontario employee, the fact that they are approaching two years on LTD does not automatically mean the employment contract is frustrated. Frustration may be established where the medical evidence shows there is no reasonable prospect of the employee returning to work in the reasonably foreseeable future, even with accommodation. Before terminating, it is advisable to obtain updated medical information focused on prognosis, functional abilities, possible accommodations, and whether any return to the employee’s own or modified work is reasonably expected.

You should also confirm that you have met your duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code and considered whether any reasonable accommodation or alternative work is available without undue hardship. The length of the absence alone should not be the deciding factor. You should also check whether the employee is currently entitled to any job-protected leave under Ontario’s ESA and review the LTD policy to ensure that terminating employment will not unintentionally interfere with ongoing disability benefits.

If frustration is properly established, the termination is generally best described as a termination due to frustration of contract, rather than for cause or as a typical without-cause termination. In Ontario, however, where frustration results from illness or injury, the employee is still entitled to ESA termination pay and, if eligible, ESA severance pay. Common-law reasonable notice would generally not be owed if frustration is validly established, but accrued wages, vacation entitlements, and any other statutory amounts must still be paid.

For the ROE, Code D – Illness or Injury is generally used when the employee temporarily stops working because of illness or injury, not when the employer later permanently ends the employment relationship. In a frustration scenario, Code M – Dismissal is commonly the more appropriate choice because the employer is ending the employment relationship, even though there is no misconduct or just cause. The safest approach is to treat the two-year point as a trigger for a final medical and accommodation review, rather than as an automatic termination date.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: JD change/update for AI #108387

There is generally no automatic legal obligation to amend existing job descriptions simply because developers have begun using AI tools. That said, from an HR and future performance-management perspective, I would recommend reviewing the JDs if AI has become a meaningful part of how the development work is expected to be performed. The key distinction is between AI being merely another tool used to perform existing duties versus the employer introducing genuinely new competencies or substantially changing the core role. Ontario recognizes that significant unilateral changes to core duties and responsibilities can, in some circumstances, raise constructive-dismissal issues, so major changes should be handled more carefully.

The bigger issue for future terminations is expectation-setting and training rather than the wording of the JD alone. If, for example, you later conclude that a developer is underperforming because they cannot effectively use AI-assisted coding, prompting, code-review or testing tools, it will be much easier to support that decision if you can show that the competency was clearly communicated, employees were given reasonable access to the technology and training, and they had a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the required standard. I would therefore document the new expectations through updated JDs, competency profiles, performance goals or development plans where AI proficiency has become material to the role, and provide reasonable working time for employees to learn the tools rather than expecting them to acquire substantially new skills on their own time.

I would also avoid framing a future termination as simply “you don’t have AI skills.” Instead, identify the actual job outcomes involved—for example, ability to use approved development tools efficiently, validate AI-generated code, protect confidential information, identify errors or security vulnerabilities, and meet established quality/productivity standards. That creates a much stronger performance-management record and also avoids tying employment decisions to a particular technology that may change quickly. One additional Ontario point: as of January 1, 2026, certain employers with 25 or more employees have AI-related disclosure obligations for public job postings where AI is used to screen, assess or select applicants, but those provisions do not themselves require employers to update existing employees’ job descriptions merely because employees use AI in their work.

-HRInsider

[Author]

Posts