[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Workplace Investigation -Learning of a medical diagnosis in Respondent interview #101661

The ASD diagnosis is a relevant mitigating factor, but it is not automatically a determinative one. Under Canadian human rights law, autism is a disability, and once an employer becomes aware of it, the employer has a duty to consider accommodation to the point of undue hardship. However, the duty to accommodate does not excuse misconduct simply because it may be connected to a disability. The key question is whether the disability affected the employee’s ability to understand the impact or wrongfulness of the conduct, to regulate their behaviour, or to comply with workplace expectations. Even if it did, the employer must still ensure a workplace free from harassment and sexual harassment.

When determining proportionate discipline, it is helpful to distinguish between culpability and risk. Factors supporting mitigation include the respondent’s documented diagnosis, remorse, admissions to three of the four allegations, willingness to cooperate, any evidence that the behaviours were influenced by ASD-related social communication deficits, a previously clean disciplinary record (if applicable), and whether accommodations might reasonably reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Factors supporting more severe discipline include the seriousness of the harassment, the impact on the complainant(s), whether the conduct was repeated or deliberate, whether there was an abuse of power, whether the respondent understood the conduct was unwelcome, and whether continued employment would undermine workplace safety or trust.

The fact that the you did not know about the diagnosis before the investigation is also significant. An employer cannot be criticized for failing to accommodate a disability it was unaware of. Your obligation arose once the disability was disclosed, and it appears you appropriately addressed accommodations during the investigation. The disciplinary decision should therefore be based on the misconduct itself, while considering the newly identified disability as one factor among many—not as a shield from accountability.

If the investigation supports that the misconduct can likely be prevented through reasonable accommodation and the respondent demonstrates insight, remorse, and a genuine commitment to change, alternatives to termination could include a lengthy unpaid suspension, a final written warning, mandatory respectful workplace and sexual harassment training, individualized coaching, accommodations informed by medical information (where appropriate), and a clear last-chance agreement stating that any further harassment will result in termination. Conversely, if the conduct was sufficiently serious, created an ongoing safety risk, or there is no reasonable basis to believe accommodation would prevent recurrence, termination may still be a proportionate response despite the ASD diagnosis.

Overall, the diagnosis should prompt a careful individualized assessment rather than an automatic reduction in discipline. The decision should be well documented, demonstrating that the employer weighed the disability, considered whether accommodation could address the behaviour going forward, and balanced those considerations against its legal obligation to provide a workplace free from harassment and sexual harassment. That approach is generally the strongest position from both an employment law and human rights perspective.

You can further navigate this matter by exploring some of these available resources:
How to Create a Mental Disability Accommodations Policy
Verifying Disability Policy
Accessibility Resources
Workplace Harassment Policy
Respectful Workplace Policy
Harassment – Know The Laws of Your Province

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Ontario Stat Severance Pay #101628

No. An employee who qualifies for statutory severance pay (5+ years of service and the employer meets the payroll or mass termination threshold) is not automatically entitled to continued health and dental benefits during the statutory severance pay period.

One important caveat —

If the employee is receiving:

-common law reasonable notice,
-salary continuance under an employment contract, or
-an enhanced severance package,
the employer may agree (or be required) to continue benefits beyond the ESA minimums. That obligation comes from the employment contract, settlement agreement, or common law—not from the ESA’s statutory severance provisions.

So, under the ESA alone, benefits continue through the statutory notice period, but not through the statutory severance pay period.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Immigration Status for CPA Program #101610

In Canada, employers should generally avoid asking applicants directly about their citizenship, permanent resident status, or immigration status unless there is a bona fide occupational requirement or a legal requirement to verify work authorization. Those questions could reveal a protected ground under human rights legislation and create a risk of a discrimination claim if not handled carefully.

Instead, focus on the essential requirements of the position. Since successful enrolment in the CPA articling program is a legitimate job requirement, you can advise candidates that enrolment in the CPA program is a condition of employment and ask whether they are able to meet that requirement. For example: “This position requires successful enrolment in the CPA Professional Education Program (PEP) in accordance with CPA requirements. Are you able to meet this requirement by the required start date?” This keeps the discussion focused on the job requirement rather than the applicant’s citizenship or immigration status.

If a candidate indicates they may be unable to meet the enrolment requirement, you can ask job-related follow-up questions, such as whether they anticipate any barriers to enrolling by the required deadline or whether they already meet CPA admission requirements. You should avoid probing into why they cannot enroll if the answer would require them to disclose protected information, such as their citizenship or immigration status.

Finally, if the inability to obtain a Provincial Attestation Letter means the individual cannot satisfy an essential requirement of the role despite being legally authorized to work in Canada, the employer can generally make hiring decisions based on the inability to meet that bona fide occupational requirement—not on the individual’s citizenship or immigration status itself. Given the evolving nature of the Provincial Attestation Letter requirements, it would also be prudent to review your recruitment process with legal counsel to ensure your screening questions remain compliant with the applicable provincial human rights legislation.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation time and vacation payout policy #101532

Your proposed approach is generally well aligned with the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA), particularly because it recognizes the requirement that employees receive and take at least their statutory minimum vacation entitlement. However, there are a few areas where additional clarification may help reduce compliance risk and improve transparency for employees.

First, the ESA requires that employees take their earned statutory vacation time within 10 months after the end of the vacation entitlement year. Employers cannot simply pay out statutory vacation time instead of ensuring the employee actually takes the required vacation leave, unless the employee’s employment ends or the Director of Employment Standards approves an alternative arrangement. As a result, any policy language suggesting that unused statutory vacation time will automatically be paid out in April could create compliance concerns if the employee has not actually taken the minimum vacation leave required by the ESA.

Second, the distinction between statutory vacation entitlement and any additional employer-provided vacation should be made very clear. For example, employees with three weeks of entitlement under company policy but only two weeks of ESA entitlement may have different treatment applied to the additional week. Clearly defining what constitutes “statutory vacation” versus “additional discretionary vacation” will help avoid misunderstandings and support consistent administration.

Third, the provision stating that vacation in excess of the statutory minimum may be forfeited if not taken and not approved for carry-over warrants careful review. While employers generally have more flexibility regarding vacation benefits that exceed ESA minimum standards, forfeiture provisions can be challenged if employees were not provided a reasonable opportunity to use the earned time or if the policy is not clearly communicated and consistently enforced. Many employers choose to pay out excess vacation rather than forfeit it to reduce employee relations concerns and potential disputes.

Fourth, you may wish to include language confirming that management reserves the right to schedule vacation where necessary to ensure compliance with ESA requirements. This helps protect the organization if an employee repeatedly declines to schedule vacation, as the employer remains responsible for ensuring statutory vacation is taken within the required timeframe.

Fifth, consider clarifying the approval process for carry-over requests. For example, specify when requests must be submitted, what factors will be considered when approving carry-over, and that approval is not automatic. This additional detail promotes consistency and helps employees understand their responsibilities regarding vacation planning.

Overall, the strongest compliance concern relates to the treatment of unused statutory vacation time. A safer approach would be to state that statutory vacation must be taken within the ESA-required timeframe and that any payout provisions apply only to vacation benefits that exceed ESA minimum entitlements. You may also wish to have employment counsel review the final wording to ensure it reflects both ESA requirements and any recent Ministry of Labour interpretations or decisions.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Sick Leave #101154

Your initial assessment is generally correct. In jurisdictions such as Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, statutory sick or illness leaves are primarily job-protected leave entitlements, while your organization’s 80-hour paid sick leave policy is a separate employer-provided benefit. In practice, when an employee takes time off due to illness, the absence should typically count against both the employer-paid sick leave bank and the applicable statutory leave entitlement at the same time, provided the reason for the absence qualifies under the provincial legislation.

This means that an employee who is absent due to a qualifying illness would generally receive pay from Harbor’s 80-hour sick leave bank first, while the corresponding statutory sick leave entitlement is tracked concurrently. The statutory leave is not normally deferred until after the paid bank is exhausted. Doing so could inadvertently provide employees with a longer period of protected leave than intended by the legislation and complicate compliance tracking.

Once the employee has exhausted their 80 hours of paid sick leave, any additional absence may become unpaid. However, the employee may still be entitled to job protection if they have remaining statutory sick leave entitlement available under their province’s employment standards legislation. Depending on the circumstances, they may also qualify for other protected leaves, such as long-term illness, critical illness, or disability-related accommodations under human rights legislation.

For Workday configuration purposes, many employers establish a paid sick leave plan that runs concurrently with statutory sick leave. The system deducts hours from the paid sick bank while simultaneously recording usage against the applicable provincial statutory leave. This approach helps ensure employees receive their paid entitlement first, maintains compliance with provincial job-protection requirements, and provides accurate reporting when paid time is exhausted but protected leave rights continue.

I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Releasing info for employee who has passed away #101090

I would not recommend waiving the proof requirement simply because a T4 has already been mailed or because the relative states they are managing the estate.

A T4 is generally issued as part of the employer’s normal statutory obligations and may be sent based on information already on file. Providing additional employment, payroll, benefits, or account records is a separate disclosure of personal information and should be treated more cautiously.

That said, a practical, risk-based approach is often appropriate. If the relative is requesting relatively limited information (for example, copies of pay statements, ROE information, or confirmation of final pay amounts), and they have already provided a death certificate and there are no concerns about competing family members or estate disputes, some employers may accept a copy of the will naming them as executor, rather than insisting on probate documents. In Ontario, probate is not always obtained immediately and may not be required in every estate.

Where the individual has provided no documentation beyond a statement that they are managing the estate, best practice would still be to request proof of authority before releasing further information. At a minimum, you could ask for:

-A copy of the death certificate or funeral director’s statement of death; and
-Documentation showing they are the executor or estate trustee (such as the relevant portion of the will, probate documents if available, or other estate documentation).

If the requester cannot provide any evidence of their authority, I would be hesitant to release additional records. The inconvenience of requesting documentation is generally outweighed by the privacy risks associated with disclosing personal information to someone who may not be legally entitled to receive it.

A practical response could be:

“Although the relative has advised they are managing the estate and has already received the deceased employee’s T4, it would still be prudent to obtain some form of documentation confirming their authority before releasing additional records. The T4’s issuance does not, by itself, verify that the individual is legally authorized to act on behalf of the estate. Depending on the circumstances, this may be as simple as a copy of the death certificate and documentation identifying them as the executor or estate trustee. Requiring at least minimal proof helps protect the employer from potential privacy complaints or disputes among family members regarding access to the deceased employee’s information.”

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee not abiding by Medical Functional Abilities Form #100901

Your approach is generally sound. If the only medical information currently available is a Functional Abilities Form stating the employee has had major surgery and must be excused from work for eight weeks, the employer should not ignore that information. From both a health and safety and liability perspective, it is reasonable to advise the employee that the organization must rely on the medical documentation provided unless updated medical information is received confirming fitness for work and outlining any restrictions or limitations. Employers are entitled to seek functional abilities information for accommodation and return-to-work purposes, provided they focus on restrictions and capabilities rather than diagnosis.

In your meeting, I would emphasize that the discussion is not disciplinary and is focused on ensuring the employee’s health, safety, and successful recovery. Explain that based on the current FAF, the organization is prepared to place them on a protected medical leave and maintain communication regarding any changes to their functional abilities. If the employee wishes to continue working, request updated written medical confirmation indicating they are fit to work and specifying any restrictions, limitations, reduced hours, or modified duties that may be required.

I would also avoid characterizing the situation as simply “enforcing” the restriction. Instead, frame it as the employer’s obligation to act on the medical information available and to engage in the accommodation process. If updated medical information supports a return to work with restrictions, you can then assess modified duties, reduced hours, or a gradual return-to-work plan as appropriate.

Finally, document the meeting, the medical information relied upon, the employee’s position, and any requests for updated medical documentation. Your understanding regarding vacation is also correct—vacation should generally only be applied at the employee’s request or with their agreement, rather than being imposed in place of a medical leave. This is a situation where careful documentation and a consistent reliance on objective medical information will be important.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Releasing info for employee who has passed away #100829

In Ontario, an employer should be very cautious about releasing payroll, benefits, or account information following an employee’s death. Generally, information should only be provided to the legally authorized representative of the deceased employee’s estate, such as the executor named in the will or an estate trustee/administrator appointed by the court. Even where a family member contacts the employer, you should avoid providing access or disclosing personal information until you have confirmed that they have the legal authority to act on behalf of the estate.

As a best practice, employers should request supporting documentation before releasing any records or granting access. This would typically include a copy of the death certificate and proof of authority, such as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee (probate documents) or a copy of the will naming the executor. Depending on the type of information being requested, employers may also wish to limit disclosure to only what is reasonably necessary (for example, payroll records needed for estate administration or tax purposes). Access to the employee’s actual payroll system login or internal accounts should generally not be provided; instead, employers should retrieve and provide the relevant information directly.

It is also recommended that employers have an internal procedure for handling deceased employee records, including who is authorized to respond to requests, what documentation is required, and how access to systems is disabled or preserved. This helps ensure compliance with privacy obligations and reduces the risk of unauthorized disclosure.

I hope this helps —

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Internal Promotions #100725

I’ve drafted up a sample policy for you to adjust according to your needs:

Internal Promotion Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to provide a fair, transparent, and consistent approach to employee promotions within the organization. Promotions are based on business needs, employee performance, demonstrated competencies, leadership capabilities, and readiness for increased responsibility.

Scope
This policy applies to all permanent employees in Ontario.

Guiding Principles
Promotions will be based on:
-Merit and demonstrated performance
-Alignment with organizational values
-Business and operational needs
-Leadership capability and professional conduct
-Readiness to perform at the next level

Promotions are not automatic based on tenure alone.

General Promotion Eligibility Criteria
Employees being considered for promotion should generally:
-Be in good standing with the organization
-Demonstrate consistent strong performance
-Meet or exceed expectations in their current role
-Demonstrate the competencies required for the next level
-Show initiative, accountability, and collaboration
-Have no active disciplinary concerns
-Typically have completed at least 12 months in their current role (unless exceptional circumstances apply)

Promotion Framework by Level

Specialist → Senior Specialist
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Demonstrate advanced technical or subject matter expertise
-Work independently with minimal supervision
-Consistently produce high-quality work
-Support or mentor junior team members
-Contribute to process improvements or innovation
-Demonstrate strong problem-solving and decision-making skills
-Are viewed as a trusted resource within their department

Indicators of Readiness
-Takes ownership of complex projects
-Regularly exceeds role expectations
-Provides guidance to others informally
-Demonstrates strong communication and reliability

Manager → Senior Manager
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Successfully lead teams and operational priorities
-Demonstrate strategic thinking beyond day-to-day operations
-Effectively manage performance, conflict, and employee development
-Consistently achieve departmental goals
-Lead cross-functional initiatives or organizational projects
-Demonstrate strong leadership, accountability, and business judgment
-Contribute to organizational planning and decision-making

Indicators of Readiness
-Develops future leaders
-Manages complex issues independently
-Demonstrates strong stakeholder management
-Drives measurable improvements in operations or culture

Senior Manager → Director
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Demonstrate organization-wide leadership and influence
-Contribute to strategic direction and long-term planning
-Lead multiple teams, functions, or major initiatives
-Make decisions with significant operational or financial impact
-Demonstrate strong leadership presence and executive communication skills
-Build strong internal and external relationships
-Model organizational values and culture consistently

Indicators of Readiness
-Thinks strategically and organizationally
-Leads through change effectively
-Influences senior leadership decisions
-Demonstrates strong business acumen and leadership maturity

Promotion Process
Promotions may include:
-Performance review history
-Leadership assessment
-Review of competencies and achievements
-Consideration of organizational needs and structure
-Approval by senior leadership and/or HR

The organization reserves the right to determine whether a promotion opportunity exists based on operational requirements and budget considerations.

Additional Notes
-Promotions may or may not include compensation adjustments depending on organizational policy and compensation structure.
-Employees may be asked to participate in development planning prior to promotion.
-The organization is committed to fair and equitable employment practices in accordance with Ontario employment and human rights legislation.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Career Mapping #100671

Hi Susie! We moreso deal with compliance and safety in the workplace, so with career mapping resources, I would look elsewhere – here is a good guide and template from the job board Indeed. Sorry we can’t provide specific resources but with this suggestion and your suggestion of an internal promotion policy, I will be speaking with the editorial team to get the creation of these tools in the queue!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Internal Promotions #100670

Hi Susie! You can look up the keyword “promotion” on our site to find these results – however, we don’t have a policy specifically surrounding internal promotions. Would you like to provide me with your jurisdiction and what you would like your policy/strategy to address so I can give you a bit more guidance for its iteration?

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: ACCESS TO PERSONNEL FILES #100326

Whether an employer is required to provide performance review documents from an employee’s personnel file depends on the jurisdiction and the type of employer. In federally regulated workplaces and in provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta, privacy legislation generally gives employees the right to access their personal information, which can include performance reviews, subject to limited exceptions. In unionized workplaces, collective agreements often contain provisions allowing employees to review or obtain copies of documents in their personnel file.

In Ontario and some other jurisdictions, there is no general private-sector law requiring employers to provide employees with access to their personnel file, unless a workplace policy, employment contract, collective agreement, or legal proceeding creates that obligation. Even where there is no legal requirement, many employers choose to provide performance reviews to support transparency, fairness, and good employee relations, particularly if the documents are being relied on for discipline, performance management, or termination decisions.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Commission Based Wages – Alberta #100324

A 100% commission-based compensation policy in Alberta should clearly confirm that the worker is an employee and therefore entitled to all applicable protections under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code, including minimum wage, vacation pay, general holiday pay, and potentially overtime pay. The policy should explain how hours of work will be tracked, how minimum wage top-ups will be calculated if commissions fall below minimum wage, and whether the position qualifies for any overtime exemptions. Employers should avoid assuming that all commissioned employees are exempt from overtime requirements, as this can create significant compliance risks.

The policy should also provide detailed information about how commissions are earned, calculated, and paid. This includes defining what constitutes a sale, when commissions become payable, how cancellations, refunds, non-payment, or chargebacks are handled, and whether commissions are based on gross or net sales. Clear language should also address commission payment schedules, payroll statements, recoverable or non-recoverable draws against commission, and any adjustments that may occur. Precise definitions are essential, as disputes over commission entitlement are one of the most common legal issues in commission-based employment arrangements.

Additional considerations should include expense reimbursement, territory and client ownership, performance expectations, confidentiality obligations, and procedures for leaves of absence. The policy should clarify how commissions are treated during vacation, sick leave, or parental leave, and whether accounts or sales opportunities may be reassigned during those periods. Employers should also outline expectations around sales activity, reporting requirements, CRM usage, and compliance with company policies and professional standards.

Finally, the policy should carefully address termination of employment and post-employment commission entitlement. This section should specify what happens to pending commissions if an employee resigns or is terminated, whether commissions continue through any notice period, and whether active employment is required on the payout date. Because Alberta law places restrictions on deductions from wages and courts often interpret unclear commission language in favour of employees, employers should ensure that clawback provisions, amendment rights, and forfeiture clauses are drafted carefully and reviewed by legal counsel before implementation.

Also check out: Managing Commission and Workers’ Compensation Checklist

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Customers contacting employees on their personal phone #100265

There is currently no Ontario legislation that specifically prohibits customers from contacting employees on their personal phones outside of working hours. Ontario’s “right to disconnect” requirements under the Employment Standards Act only require certain employers to have a written policy regarding after-hours work communications; they do not ban after-hours contact or regulate communications initiated by customers. However, employers still have general obligations to maintain a safe and respectful workplace and to manage risks related to employee stress, burnout, harassment, and unpaid work.

Although customer contact itself is not illegal, problems can arise if employees feel pressured to respond after hours or if personal contact becomes excessive, intrusive, or abusive. In these situations, employers may face risks related to workplace harassment, psychological safety, or unpaid work obligations. For this reason, it is advisable for employers to establish clear boundaries around customer communications and employee availability.

A recommended approach would be to implement an internal “Right to Disconnect” or “After-Hours Communication” policy. The policy should clearly state that employees are not expected to use personal phones, text messaging, or personal email accounts for customer communications unless specifically authorized. It should also establish that customer communications are to occur only through approved company channels, such as company phone systems, email addresses, or customer service platforms, and that employees are not expected to respond outside their scheduled work hours unless formally assigned on-call duties.

The policy should also include procedures for addressing situations where customers repeatedly contact employees personally or outside business hours. Managers should reinforce these boundaries consistently and avoid encouraging employees to remain available after hours. Additional best practices may include using centralized customer service lines, business mobile devices, or call management systems to better protect employee privacy and maintain appropriate work-life boundaries.

Check out more HRInsider resources on this topic here:
Right To Disconnect Policy
Cellphone Use Policy
What to Include in your Cellphone Use Policy
How to Create a Cellphone Use Policy
Mobile Device Company Policy

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: policies #99838

For a manufacturing company in Ontario with approximately 300 employees, there are several workplace policies that are legally required under provincial legislation. These requirements primarily stem from the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and more recent amendments introduced through the Working for Workers Acts. Ensuring that these policies are in place—and properly implemented—will help your organization remain compliant while also supporting employee safety, well-being, and fair treatment.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers with six or more workers are required to have a written Occupational Health and Safety Policy. This policy must be posted in the workplace and reviewed at least annually. Its purpose is to outline the employer’s commitment to maintaining a safe work environment and to serve as the foundation for the organization’s overall health and safety program. In addition, the OHSA requires both a Workplace Violence Policy and a Workplace Harassment Policy. These requirements were introduced through legislative amendments (Bills 168 and 132) and are intended to protect workers from physical and psychological harm. Each must be supported by a corresponding program that includes procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to incidents, and both must be reviewed annually.

Because your organization employs more than 25 workers, additional policies are required under the Employment Standards Act as amended by the Working for Workers legislation. You must have a written Disconnecting from Work Policy (introduced through Bill 27), which outlines expectations regarding after-hours communication and supports employee work-life balance. You are also required to have an Electronic Monitoring Policy (introduced through Bill 88), which informs employees about whether and how their activities are being monitored, such as through GPS tracking or computer usage systems. These policies are primarily intended to increase transparency and protect employee privacy and well-being.

As an employer with more than 50 employees, you are also subject to requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This includes maintaining written accessibility policies and developing a multi-year accessibility plan. These measures are designed to identify, remove, and prevent barriers for individuals with disabilities and ensure equal access to employment opportunities and workplace services. The AODA also requires documented employment practices related to accommodation, return-to-work processes, and accessible recruitment.

In addition to formal policies, there are several program-level requirements that, while not always labeled as “policies” in legislation, must still be documented and are typically treated as such in practice. For example, the OHSA requires employers to implement and maintain a health and safety program that supports the overarching policy. This includes elements such as hazard identification, worker training, workplace inspections, and incident reporting procedures. Furthermore, because your workforce exceeds 20 employees, you are required to establish and maintain a Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC). While the Act does not explicitly require a written “policy” for the committee, it does require defined roles, procedures, and regular meetings, all of which are typically documented.

It is also important to note that while the Employment Standards Act sets out minimum standards for wages, hours of work, overtime, and other employment conditions, it does not always require these to be formalized into written policies. However, many organizations choose to document these standards internally to ensure consistency, clarity, and legal defensibility.

You can find many compliant policies on HRInsider and OHSInsider, as well as training videos from ILTSafetyNow. If you require anything that you cannot find on one of our sites, feel free to contact our team and request it! We try to reach all requests as soon as we can.

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts