[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation pay on Termination notice periods #97068

Great question — Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA) and common law notice interact a bit differently when it comes to vacation pay.

Statutory Notice under the ESA

When you provide statutory notice (working notice), the employee remains employed during that period.

They continue to earn vacation pay as if they were actively working.

Therefore, vacation pay must be calculated on the statutory notice period (2 weeks in your example).

Common Law Pay in Lieu of Notice

Common law notice is not an ESA requirement; it is a court-imposed entitlement for reasonable notice of termination.

When employers provide pay in lieu of notice (instead of requiring the employee to work), this is treated as damages for wrongful dismissal, not as “wages” under the ESA.

Because of that, the ESA does not require vacation pay to accrue on common law pay in lieu.

That said, some employers do pay vacation on the common law portion for consistency or if employment contracts/policies require it — but it is not legally mandated under the ESA.

Using Your Scenario as a Practical Example

2 weeks ESA notice: Vacation pay (6%) must be calculated on this portion.

6 weeks common law pay in lieu: Vacation pay is not required under the ESA, unless your contract or company policy explicitly says so.

So strictly speaking, you would calculate 6% on 2 weeks only, not on the full 8 weeks.

Answer in short:
Vacation pay in Ontario is only mandatory on the ESA notice period (2 weeks here). It does not have to be added on the common law pay in lieu of notice unless contract, policy, or settlement terms specify otherwise.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Splitting parental leave – one parent taking non-consecutive leaves #97066

Great question — this touches on the interaction between federal EI rules (which set eligibility for benefits) and provincial employment standards law (which sets leave entitlements and obligations for employers).

EI Benefits vs. Employment Standards

EI Parental Benefits (federal, under Service Canada):
Employees can choose standard or extended parental benefits and may divide them into non-consecutive periods within the 78-week (extended) or 52-week (standard) window, depending on which option they elected. This is about benefit payments, not an automatic right to time off work.

Job-Protected Leave (provincial, under BC Employment Standards Act [ESA]):
In BC, employees are entitled to up to 62 consecutive weeks of unpaid, job-protected parental leave, to be taken immediately after pregnancy leave (if applicable) or within 78 weeks of the child’s birth/placement. The ESA states that parental leave must be taken in one continuous block. The Act does not provide for splitting it into multiple segments.

Employer’s Role

You are legally required to provide one continuous block of parental leave, as outlined in the ESA.

While EI may allow benefit payments over several segments, that doesn’t create a corresponding employment entitlement.

Therefore, if the employee requests three separate leaves, you are not obligated to grant that structure.

You may allow it as an accommodation or by mutual agreement, but it is within your discretion. If granting multiple leaves causes operational difficulties, you can reasonably decline and require the leave to be taken as one block.

My recommendations

-Communicate clearly with the employee that EI rules and ESA entitlements are not identical.

-If you are open to flexibility, you may approve split leaves as an employer policy decision, but you are not legally required to.

-Always confirm in writing which arrangement you and the employee agree upon, to avoid confusion with Service Canada’s benefit rules.

In BC, the statutory entitlement is to one continuous parental leave. The employer can refuse multiple, non-consecutive leaves if they are operationally problematic. EI’s flexibility in benefit payment does not override provincial employment standards.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accident after work hours #97049

This is a tricky situation, because liability depends on whether the incident is deemed work-related under workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety laws, which is why I once again recommend seeking out legal counsel.

If the employee was socializing independently after work, generally it would not be compensable under workers’ compensation. If the employee was entertaining or accompanying customers as part of their role—even outside regular work hours—there’s a stronger chance the incident could be deemed work-related. Many jurisdictions consider client dinners, events, or business-related socializing as “arising out of and in the course of employment.”

Employer Liability Risks

Workers’ Compensation Claim: If the injury is accepted as work-related, the employee’s medical care and wage loss would likely be covered by workers’ comp. In that case, your organization would generally be shielded from direct lawsuits (the “exclusive remedy” principle).

Denial of Claim: If the compensation board denies the claim (e.g., because it’s deemed a personal activity), the employee might try to pursue other legal avenues, such as alleging negligence or unsafe work expectations. However, these claims are harder to prove if the event was clearly outside employer direction.

Reputation & Duty of Care: Even if there is no strict legal liability, there could be reputational risks, especially if alcohol, late hours, or implied work obligations were involved. Employers are expected to set clear boundaries for “work-related” functions and safe conduct.

Key Risk Factors to Consider

Was the customer event sanctioned or encouraged by the employer?

Was attendance voluntary or expected?

Was alcohol or late-night socializing involved, and was the employee acting in a “work host” capacity?

Was there employer reimbursement for meals/drinks, or was it on company time/expense?

The more the answers lean toward work-related expectation or benefit to the company, the greater the risk of the injury being compensable and employer-linked.

Bottom Line:
If the employee was clearly “with customers” as part of their job—even after hours—there’s a significant risk this could be considered a work-related injury. That means your organization could face a workers’ comp claim. If it was purely personal, liability is low.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accident after work hours #97044

You’re right to approach this carefully—because the incident happened outside of work hours and there are gaps in the facts, you’ll want to handle the investigation in a way that is respectful, fact-based, and protective of both the employee and your organization. Here are some best practice considerations you can follow:

Clarify the Scope of the Investigation

Since the incident occurred after hours, focus your investigation on whether there was any connection to work (e.g., was the employee traveling for work, attending a work-related event, or otherwise engaged in employer-related duties).

Establish early whether this falls under workplace incident reporting (e.g., workers’ compensation) or if it is considered a personal injury outside of work.

Collect Factual Information (Not Assumptions)

When speaking with the employee:

Ask open, neutral questions such as:

“Can you walk me through your day leading up to the hospitalization?”

“Do you recall where you were, who you were with, or what activities you were doing?”

“Did you experience any symptoms or warning signs before the incident?”

Since the employee has memory gaps, also gather information from:

The hospital (with the employee’s consent).

Witnesses, coworkers, or anyone who was last with the employee.

Supervisor notes from when the employee called in.

Avoid questions that suggest blame or speculation (e.g., don’t directly ask about alcohol unless the employee volunteers it or you have documented third-party information).

Documentation Practices

Record dates, times, and facts only—avoid including opinions or assumptions.

Note who provided the information and when (e.g., employee statements vs. third-party accounts).

Keep medical information confidential unless needed for workplace health and safety or workers’ compensation reporting.

Communication with the Employee

Express concern for their health first—frame the investigation as a way to understand if there are any workplace obligations, not as a disciplinary matter.

Explain clearly:

Why you’re asking questions (to determine if it is work-related).

How their information will be used (for reporting and to ensure duty of care).

Liability & Risk Management

If alcohol or personal activity unrelated to work is involved, that generally places the incident outside employer responsibility—but avoid concluding this without proper documentation.

Consult with:

Your HR/legal advisor to ensure proper handling.

Your workers’ compensation board to clarify whether reporting is required given the circumstances.

Next Steps to Protect the Organization

Preserve records: flight bookings, supervisor notes, hospital confirmation (with consent), any emails or messages.

Notify insurers/compensation board if there’s any chance of workplace connection.

Stay neutral in documentation until all facts are established.

Ultimately, approach this as a fact-finding exercise, not a fault-finding one. Keep the scope limited to work connection, ask neutral questions, and ensure your records are defensible if reviewed later.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97041

Of course Aleesha, I always enjoy speaking with you. Take care and I hope this advice was useful 🙂

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97039

In BC, the key question the Labour Relations Board (LRB) looks at is whether the employees form an “appropriate bargaining unit” — and that depends on how similar their work is, how they’re managed, and whether they share a community of interest.

When the union applies, it defines the bargaining unit it wants. For example:

“All Installers employed by [Company] in BC, excluding supervisors, managers, and confidential staff.”

The LRB then decides whether that scope is appropriate. They may narrow or broaden it depending on the facts.

If the LRB accepts a province-wide “Installers” unit, all Installers across BC (gas, water, electrical projects) could be included in one certification.

But if the Board decides that different projects/sites are sufficiently distinct, it may certify a smaller unit (e.g., only the Installers at the head office gas meter project).

How the Board Decides

The BC LRB looks at factors like:

Community of Interest: Do the employees perform similar functions? Do they share skills, training, conditions, and terms of employment?

Functional Integration: Are they managed under the same structure? Do they move between projects, or are they fixed to one?

Geographic Separation: Are the worksites close together, or scattered across the province?

Bargaining History: Has there been previous certification or informal recognition?

If your Installers (gas vs. water vs. electrical) are all hired under the same job classification, policies, and management structure, the LRB may well see them as one “natural” bargaining unit.
If instead they are segmented by project, with different supervisors, conditions, or pay structures, the LRB may restrict the unit to one site or project.

Example Outcomes

Broad certification: “All Installers in BC” → union represents every Installer, regardless of project type.

Narrow certification: “All Installers at the Burnaby Gas Project” → union covers only that group; if they want water/electrical projects unionized later, they’d need a new certification.

It won’t automatically be all Installers everywhere unless the union’s application defines it that way and the Board agrees.

There’s a good chance the union will try for a broad unit (all Installers in BC) since it gives them more leverage.

But you (as the employer) have the right to argue before the Board that the unit should be narrower — for example, that gas meter work is materially different from water/electrical projects, or that project management structures are separate.

In BC, certification can apply to all employees of a certain class (like Installers) across the province — but only if the LRB defines the bargaining unit that way. If you can show that your Installers on different projects do not share a strong “community of interest,” the Board may limit the unit to just one group or project.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97034

I should also clarify upon what “separate certifications” means –

When a union applies to represent employees, the labour board issues a certification order that is specific to a defined bargaining unit (e.g., “All program staff at the Burnaby location, excluding managers”).

If the union wants to represent employees at a different site (say, your Alberta office), it must file a new certification application in that province, for that site.

Each of these is its own separate certification order.

So if you have three sites in three provinces, the union would need three separate certifications (one per site/province) unless the labour board finds that the sites are integrated enough to treat them as one bargaining unit (uncommon across provinces). The “separate certifications” I referred to are individual certification orders from the labour board for each site/province where the union organizes. Later, the union can apply to the board to consolidate those certified units into one larger bargaining unit — but only within a single province.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97032

That’s another great question. Unionization applies only to the defined bargaining unit, not automatically to the entire company. Managers, supervisors, and HR/confidential staff are generally excluded. The labour board makes the final call on who is “in” and who is “out.”

Unionization does not automatically mean every single employee in your company is covered. It depends on how the bargaining unit is defined and on exclusions set out in law.

Bargaining Unit Definition

When a union applies for certification, it specifies the group of employees it seeks to represent — for example:

“All full-time and part-time program staff at the Vancouver location, excluding supervisors and managers.”

The labour board reviews this definition and decides whether it is appropriate.

The bargaining unit can be location-specific, job-class-specific, or broader — but it will not automatically cover the whole company unless the board certifies it that way (which is rare).

Typical Exclusions

Across provinces, labour relations boards generally exclude certain roles from union membership because of potential conflicts of interest. Common exclusions include:

Managers & Supervisors: Anyone who hires, fires, disciplines, or has significant authority over others.

Confidential HR & Payroll Staff: Employees with access to sensitive labour relations information (e.g., HR professionals like you).

Senior Executives: Directors, officers, or other high-level decision-makers.

Sometimes “Professional” Staff: In some sectors, professionals (like lawyers or certain healthcare roles) may have separate bargaining rights or exclusions.

Practical Example

Let’s say your BC location has:

Program coordinators, outreach workers, and admin assistants → likely included in the bargaining unit.

HR staff, office managers, site directors → likely excluded.

The labour board decides this after reviewing evidence from both the union and the employer. Sometimes there are disputes (e.g., whether a “team lead” counts as a supervisor), and the board rules on it.

Company-Wide vs. Location-Based

Not company-wide automatically: Certification usually applies to the specific group/location listed in the application.

If you have multiple sites, the union would need to apply to cover each one (unless the board finds a “community of interest” across sites and certifies a larger unit).

Over time, unions sometimes organize site by site and then amalgamate into one larger bargaining unit, but that requires separate certifications.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97030

Yes of course! Sorry, I should have broken down the original response by jurisdiction.

Labour relations are regulated provincially (except in federally regulated sectors like airlines, banking, telecom, interprovincial transport, etc.).

Since your organization is a registered charity/non-profit operating in BC, Alberta, and Ontario (and not federally regulated), each province’s Labour Relations Code applies separately.

This means:

Certification in BC only applies to the employees in BC who are part of the bargaining unit defined in the certification order.

Employees in Alberta and Ontario are not automatically covered by the BC union certification.

How Certification Spreads (or Doesn’t)

A union can only represent workers in another province if it applies for certification separately in that province, and employees there support the application.

Sometimes, the same union will organize multiple provinces and create a “local” structure (e.g., Local 123 in BC, Local 456 in Alberta). But each certification is legally independent.

If your head office is in BC, and the bargaining unit is defined as “all employees at the BC location”, that certification does not automatically extend to Alberta or Ontario staff.

Practical Implications for Your Organization

BC unit only: If the certification goes forward, you would need to bargain a collective agreement only for those BC employees.

Multi-province exposure: Union organizers may use momentum in BC to approach staff in Alberta or Ontario—but they would need to file separate applications under those provinces’ labour codes.

Consistency vs. legal requirement: While legally you only bargain in BC, operationally you may want to consider how differences in pay, benefits, or policies between unionized and non-unionized provinces will be perceived by staff.

Differences by Province

Each province has slightly different rules:

BC: “Card check” system — if more than 55% of employees sign cards, the union can be certified without a vote.

Alberta: Mandatory vote if 40–65% sign cards; automatic certification only if more than 65% sign.

Ontario: For most sectors, mandatory vote if 40%+ sign cards; automatic certification in some sectors (e.g., construction).

So, what happens in BC doesn’t bind Alberta or Ontario, but you should expect the union may test interest in those provinces next.

Certification in BC applies only to BC employees. Alberta and Ontario staff are unaffected unless the union separately applies for certification there. However, the BC outcome may influence how employees in other provinces think about organizing.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Unionization #97028

You’re right to pause here—once unionization papers have been filed, the employer’s rights and obligations are quite specific under Canadian labour law. Here’s a structured breakdown for you:

What Happens Once Papers Are Filed

When a union files for certification with the labour board, the employer enters a “statutory freeze” period. This means you cannot change wages, benefits, policies, or working conditions without labour board approval.

The labour board will review the application and either:

Certify the union (if they already have majority support, typically 55%+ of employees signed cards), or

Order a secret-ballot vote if support is in the 45–55% range (thresholds vary slightly by province).

Employer Rights

Employers retain certain rights during this process:

Freedom of expression: You may share factual information with employees about what unionization means (e.g., the collective bargaining process, dues, possible outcomes).

Business as usual: You may continue running the business as you normally would, as long as you don’t change terms of employment in response to the organizing drive.

Legal counsel: You have the right to consult with labour lawyers to ensure compliance and prepare for bargaining if certification goes through.

Representation: You may participate in the labour board’s process (e.g., challenging the scope of the bargaining unit if you believe certain employees should be excluded).

What You Cannot Do (Risk of “Unfair Labour Practices”)

This is where many well-meaning employers get into trouble. You cannot:

Threaten employees with negative consequences if they unionize (e.g., job loss, reduced hours, closure).

Promise new benefits, pay increases, or other inducements if they reject the union.

Spy on organizing activity or interrogate employees about their union support.

Negotiate directly with employees outside the union once certification papers are filed—this is considered “bypassing” the union and is unlawful.

Even informal “let’s work it out ourselves” meetings after certification papers are filed can be seen as coercive, since employees are legally exercising their right to representation through the union.

Practical Next Steps

Stay neutral but informative: If a vote is ordered, you can communicate with staff about the facts of unionization, but keep it objective and non-threatening.

Document everything: Keep records of communications in case of unfair labour practice complaints.

Prepare for bargaining: If the union is certified, you’ll need to negotiate in good faith. Start thinking about your priorities and constraints.

Train managers: Make sure supervisors understand what they can and cannot say—most unfair labour practice cases come from frontline managers saying too much.

Bottom Line: Once unionization papers have been served, you cannot prevent the process from moving forward by negotiating directly with employees. Your role shifts to compliance, communication, and preparation. Trying to cut a side deal outside of the union would likely be seen as interference and could expose your organization to legal challenges.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Entitlement PTE #96988

Great question! Let’s break this down carefully since vacation entitlement for part-time employees can be confusing. I’ll base this on employment standards in Canada (which set the minimum requirements), then explain how it applies in practice.

Vacation Entitlement Basics

Time-based entitlement: Employees earn a minimum of 2 weeks’ vacation after 12 months of employment. In many provinces, this increases to 3 weeks after 5 years.

Percentage-based entitlement: Instead of granting hours or days, employers may pay out vacation pay as a percentage of wages. The minimum is 4% (often 6% after 5 years). Some employers offer more as a benefit.

Since you’re paying 6% vacation accrual on each cheque, you’re already meeting (and likely exceeding) the legal minimum for a new part-time employee.

Do They Also Get 120 Hours of Vacation?

The 120 hours is a full-time equivalent calculation (3 weeks × 40 hours/week).

A part-time employee working 18 hours per week does not automatically get 120 hours. Vacation is pro-rated according to their average weekly hours.

For your PTE (18 hrs/week average):

3 weeks entitlement = 3 × 18 = 54 hours of vacation per year, not 120.

Percentage vs. Time Off

You don’t usually apply both systems. You either:

Track vacation pay only (percentage of wages, paid out each cheque), or

Track time off (e.g., 3 weeks pro-rated hours off, with pay when taken).

Since you’re already paying 6% vacation pay on each cheque, that covers their entitlement. They wouldn’t also earn separate “banked vacation hours” unless your policy grants it as an extra benefit.

Best Practice

Legally: Paying out 6% vacation pay on each paycheque is enough; they don’t additionally get 120 hours of paid vacation.

If you want to provide time off as well: Calculate it as 3/52 of average weekly hours worked (about 54 hours/year for your employee).

Answer: Your part-time employee does not get 120 hours of vacation. Since you’re paying 6% of earnings on each paycheque, their vacation entitlement is satisfied in cash. If you also allow unpaid vacation time off, calculate their paid hours as 3/52 × average weekly hours (≈54 hrs for 18 hrs/week).

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Working Time VS Travel Time #96982

Great question — this gets into “travel time” vs. “work time” in Canadian and U.S. employment law. The short answer is: in many cases, an employer can designate the paid start time as being at the job site — but there are important caveats depending on jurisdiction, the nature of the travel, and employment standards.

1. General Principle (Canada & U.S.)

Commuting time (home to first worksite, and final worksite back home) is usually not considered paid time, unless employees are required to transport company equipment, tools, or other materials as part of their job.

Work time begins when the employee starts their principal activities — e.g., performing work tasks, loading materials, or traveling between job sites after the start of the day.

So if employees drive directly from home to a job site, the clock generally starts when they arrive.

2. Situation: Stopping at the Warehouse First

If employees must stop at the warehouse before reaching the site (to pick up a vehicle, tools, or materials), some legal authorities may view this as work time, because:

They are performing a duty required by the employer.

Their commute is effectively extended by a work obligation.

Canada

Employment Standards (provincial/territorial): Most provinces (e.g., BC, Ontario, Alberta) consider required travel between work locations as paid.

If stopping at the warehouse is mandatory, time from warehouse departure to the job site is clearly work time.

Whether the drive from home to warehouse is paid depends — often it’s considered commuting, unless the stop adds significant duties (loading, preparing, paperwork).

U.S. (Fair Labor Standards Act – FLSA)

Portal-to-Portal Act: Ordinary commute from home to the first work location is unpaid.

However, if the employee must stop at a designated location (warehouse) to get a company vehicle, that may convert the warehouse-to-jobsite portion into paid work.

The home-to-warehouse commute would still usually be unpaid unless they’re performing integral work duties (e.g., required prep tasks).

3. Employer Policy Considerations

You can set the rule that paid time begins at the job site.

However, if employees are required to report to the warehouse first (not optional), it may create a legal expectation to compensate travel from warehouse to job site.

If employees voluntarily decline a take-home vehicle and instead drive to the warehouse, the employer is in a stronger position to define “paid time” as starting at the job site — because the warehouse stop was based on employee choice, not requirement.

4. Risk Factors

Grievances/complaints: Employees may file claims under provincial Employment Standards (Canada) or FLSA/state law (U.S.) if they feel required stops are unpaid.

Collective agreements (if unionized): Often specify when pay begins.

Fairness and retention: Even if lawful, setting unpaid warehouse stops may cause dissatisfaction if employees feel they’re doing work-related travel off the clock.

5. Best Practices

-Put the policy in writing, making clear:

-Paid time begins at the job site.

-If employees opt not to take vehicles home, their commute to the warehouse is their responsibility.

-Only travel between worksites after arrival is considered work time.

-Consider whether requiring a warehouse stop creates additional “work” (loading, vehicle checks) — in which case, pay should arguably start there.

-Review provincial/state standards to ensure compliance.

Summary:
Yes, you can generally set work time to begin at the job site. But if you require employees to stop at the warehouse, you may need to pay for warehouse-to-jobsite travel. If employees decline the option of taking a vehicle home, and the warehouse stop is voluntary, you are on firmer ground setting the start time at the job site.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Dash Cam in Employer Vehicle #96940

1. Can an employer in Saskatchewan install a front/back dashcam with audio without informing the employee?

Criminal Law (Recording Audio):
Under the federal Criminal Code (section 184), it is a criminal offence to record a private conversation unless at least one participant consents. Thus, an employer who is not a party to audio recorded in the vehicle (for example, recording employee-private phone calls or discussions with others) could be violating criminal law. Employers must obtain consent or ensure they are a participant in the conversation.
CanLII Connects

Privacy Law (Saskatchewan, LA FOIP, PIPEDA):
Saskatchewan’s privacy norms, particularly applicable to public institutions, require surveillance only for legitimate purposes and generally require notice and reasonable measures. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan has emphasized that audio surveillance should be accompanied by a privacy impact assessment, clear employee notification, appropriate signage, and limiting collection to what’s necessary.

Summary: Recording audio without prior notice—especially if it intercepts private conversations—raises serious legal concerns. Employers are expected to notify employees and limit such surveillance to legitimate business purposes, applying proper safeguards.

2. Can an employer discipline an employee based on dashcam footage?

Yes—as long as the surveillance was lawful and transparent.

If the camera was installed with proper notice for a legitimate purpose (e.g., safety), and not intrusively, then footage showing misconduct can generally be used in disciplinary actions.

However, if audio or video was collected improperly (secretly or beyond necessity), using that footage could breach privacy laws or raise ethical and legal challenges.

3. Is recording private phone calls a violation—even if not used for discipline?

Yes, potentially.

Criminal law: Recording a private call without consent (if the employer isn’t a party) is likely a violation of section 184.

Privacy legislation: Even if not used in discipline, mere collection of private personal communications without consent or notice likely breaches privacy expectations and is against PIPEDA or provincial privacy directives. Employers should only collect what is necessary and must inform employees.

What you can do as an employee:

Ask to review your employer’s surveillance policy and whether a privacy impact assessment (PIA) was done.

Ask whether the audio is being retained, where, who has access, and how long it’s kept.

If concerned, you may contact the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan for advice or to file a complaint.

In Saskatchewan, as elsewhere in Canada, surveillance must be:

Transparent — Employees should know about it beforehand.

Proportionate & necessary — Used only for legitimate purposes (e.g., safety, investigation).

Legally compliant — Must not contravene criminal law (e.g., unauthorized audio recording) or privacy statutes.

Recording private conversations without notice—especially via dashcam audio—poses legal risks, even if the employer chooses not to use that footage for discipline.

Let me know if you’d like help drafting further questions to your HR or privacy officer, or exploring next steps including contacting the privacy commissioner.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee Agreement, Remote Work Clause #96936

Hi there! This is a very solid starting point — you’ve covered the main elements employers typically need when it comes to reserving flexibility for hybrid or remote work. Let me break it down into strengths and potential refinement points for you:

Strengths of Your Clause

Discretion Reserved: You clearly state that hybrid/remote work is not a guaranteed condition of employment and may be revoked or modified at the employer’s discretion. This helps protect against claims that remote work is a permanent contractual right.

Notice Requirement: By committing to “reasonable notice,” you reduce the risk of employees claiming unfair treatment. Courts often look for reasonableness in changes.

Operational Needs Basis: You tie the discretion to “operational requirements,” which strengthens your justification and shows it’s not arbitrary.

Constructive Dismissal Protection: Including that changes do not constitute constructive dismissal is important—it signals to employees up front that this flexibility is not a fundamental term of employment.

Areas to Refine or Clarify

-What is “Reasonable Notice”?

Leaving this undefined could lead to disputes. Some employers specify a minimum timeframe (e.g., “at least two weeks’ notice”) unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Without clarity, employees may argue notice wasn’t sufficient.

-Explicit Reference to the Remote Work Policy

Since you already have a policy, it would be wise to cross-reference it. E.g.:
“This arrangement is subject to and must be read in conjunction with the Company’s Remote Work Policy, as amended from time to time.”

That way, you avoid gaps between the contract and policy.

-Expense & Equipment Considerations

Employees may assume that if they’re called back, the employer covers commuting costs or relocation. Some employers add wording like:
“Any costs associated with commuting to or from the office, or otherwise associated with a change in work location, remain the employee’s responsibility unless expressly provided otherwise in writing.”

Similarly, you may want to clarify who provides/maintains equipment if remote work is revoked.

-Geographic Limitation

If you want to prevent employees from moving far away (e.g., another province or country), consider adding:
“Remote or hybrid work does not entitle you to perform your duties from outside the jurisdiction of [Province/Canada] without the Company’s prior written approval.”

This protects you against unexpected tax, payroll, and employment law complications.

-Collective Impact Disclaimer (Optional)

Some employers add that changes “shall not be considered a breach of contract or constructive dismissal, provided the change does not result in a fundamental alteration of the essential terms of your employment.”

This aligns with legal principles around constructive dismissal.

Suggested “Polished” Version

Here’s a slightly refined draft incorporating the above:

Remote/Hybrid Work
If your role includes a remote or hybrid work arrangement, you acknowledge that such arrangements are not guaranteed and may be modified or revoked at the Company’s discretion, with reasonable notice. The Company expressly reserves the right to require you to perform your duties from a designated Company office or other location, as determined by operational requirements. Unless expressly stated otherwise in writing, a hybrid or remote arrangement does not constitute a guaranteed or permanent term of employment. This arrangement is subject to the Company’s Remote Work Policy, as amended from time to time.

The Company will provide reasonable notice of any changes to your work location, taking into account operational needs, and such changes shall not constitute constructive dismissal or a breach of this Agreement. Any costs associated with commuting to or from the office, or otherwise associated with a change in work location, remain your responsibility unless otherwise agreed in writing. You are not entitled to perform your duties from outside [Province/Canada] without the Company’s prior written approval.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination without Cause #96928

Hi there! I have divided my answer into questions so it is a bit easier to read, but there is a direct answer at the end:

1. Employment Standards (Minimum Requirements)

If this employee is provincially regulated (most employees are, unless federally regulated like banks, telecom, airlines, etc.), the applicable provincial ESA sets the minimum statutory notice or pay in lieu.

For example, in BC or Alberta, after such long service (since 1999), the maximum statutory entitlement is capped (e.g., 8 weeks in BC, 8 weeks in Alberta).

Providing 8 weeks’ severance in lieu of notice would satisfy statutory minimums in those provinces. So yes, you’d be in compliance with minimum standards if you pay 8 weeks’ severance in lieu.

2. Common Law (Reasonable Notice)

Courts often award more than ESA minimums under the doctrine of “reasonable notice,” unless you have a well-drafted employment contract that clearly limits entitlement to ESA minimums.

Factors: employee’s age, length of service, character of position, and availability of similar employment.

This employee has:

~25+ years of continuous service,

-Moved into management role,

-Likely mid-to-late career,

-Specialized experience.

Courts could easily find 12–24 months’ notice reasonable in a wrongful dismissal claim. This means that while you’d be statutorily compliant, you may still face common law exposure unless the contract explicitly limits entitlements.

3. Effect of Employee’s Intended Resignation

The fact the employee intended to resign complicates things. However:

If the employee never gave a firm resignation date, the resignation is not legally effective. The employer can’t rely on an indefinite “I’ll leave sometime” as a resignation.

Since you acted on the initial 6–8 week comment, but the employee withdrew the firm date, it remains a termination without cause on the employer’s side.

4. Compliance vs. Risk

Yes, you’re compliant with ESA by offering 8 weeks’ severance.

No, this doesn’t shield you from a wrongful dismissal claim under common law—the employee could pursue significantly more notice/severance.

If you have a written contract limiting notice to ESA minimums, you are in a strong position.

If not, it’s a risk management decision: some employers negotiate a package (e.g., 6–12 months) to reduce litigation exposure.

Answer to your direct question:
Providing 8 weeks’ severance in lieu of notice does meet statutory minimum requirements, so yes, you are “in compliance.”
However, unless the employment contract limits severance to those minimums, the employee could claim reasonable notice at common law, which would likely be much higher given 25+ years of service.

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts