[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Probationary Review Process #97467

Here’s a detailed breakdown addressing each of your questions about probationary periods and best practices, with a focus on Ontario employment standards and HR best practices.

1. Extending Probation from 3 to 6 Months

Legal Context:
Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA), the probationary period is not legally defined, but termination without notice or pay in lieu is typically permissible during the first 3 months of employment. After 3 months, employees are entitled to at least one week’s notice (or pay in lieu).

Practical Benefit of 6 Months:

A 6-month probation can help in evaluating long-term fit and performance for roles that have longer learning curves.

It gives managers and employees a more realistic time frame to assess alignment with company values and competencies.

However, extending beyond 3 months doesn’t reduce liability — you’d still need to provide notice or pay in lieu if terminating after 3 months.

Since you already offer benefits and RRSPs earlier, there’s no major financial upside; the benefit is purely performance management and alignment time.

Termination Implications:
Even within a probationary period, termination “for cause” due to performance is risky unless gross misconduct or willful neglect can be proven. It’s usually safer to terminate without cause and provide appropriate notice or pay in lieu (especially post-3 months).

2. PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) After Probation

Yes — this is common and advisable.
If an employee shows potential but is not meeting standards at the end of probation, you can:

Extend the evaluation period with a structured PIP (typically 30–90 days).

Outline clear, measurable objectives and support mechanisms.

Document all feedback and check-ins.

This demonstrates fairness and due diligence if the employment later ends, and it strengthens your legal position.

3. Longer Probations for Executives (Up to 1 Year)

Legally permissible: There’s no statutory limit to probation length in Ontario as long as ESA notice/pay obligations are met after 3 months.

Recruitment risk: Executive candidates often view long probations (>6 months) as a red flag. Instead of formal “probation,” many companies:

Use performance milestones or contractual evaluation periods for executives.

Link these to bonus or stock eligibility rather than job security.

Benchmarking:
There’s no centralized database of “average probationary periods,” but:

-3–6 months is the norm for most roles.
-6–12 months for senior or complex positions is acceptable if structured well and communicated transparently.

HR associations such as HRPA (Ontario) or CCHRA/Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada (CPHR) may publish sector-specific survey data on this.

4. Handling Underperformance in a 6-Month Probation

If the employee is not meeting objectives despite regular check-ins:

-Document everything: Keep detailed notes from all check-ins, feedback, and development efforts.
-Provide specific feedback early: Don’t wait until month 5 or 6 to raise performance concerns.

Final review:

If minimal improvement: consider termination without cause and provide statutory pay in lieu (if beyond 3 months).

If some improvement or potential: transition into a PIP with defined timelines and support.

Follow consistency: Apply the same process to all employees to avoid claims of unfair treatment.

5. Other Considerations When Revamping the Probation Process

-Set clear objectives upfront: Include role-specific expectations and behavioral benchmarks.
-Schedule structured reviews: At 30, 60, and 90 (or 180) days — documented in writing.
-Clarify in offer letters: The probationary period, review process, and that employment may be terminated without cause (subject to ESA).
-Train managers: Equip them to deliver constructive feedback early.
-Communicate benefits timing: Ensure it’s consistent and transparent, especially if benefits start before probation ends.
-Use probation as onboarding extension: Focus not only on performance but also on engagement, cultural fit, and support.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Question about Termination Clause Validity and Severance Entitlement #97463

Hi Rebecca! Excellent, detailed questions — these raise several key issues under Alberta employment law. Here’s a structured breakdown with legal reasoning and commentary relevant to each point.

1. Validity of the Termination Clause

Clauses like this are intended to limit notice or pay in lieu to statutory minimums, but Alberta courts apply a strict interpretation against employers.
For such a clause to be enforceable:

-It must clearly and unambiguously waive common law notice rights.
-It must comply fully with the Employment Standards Code (ESC) minimums.

Even minor ambiguities can render it unenforceable, reverting the employee to common law reasonable notice (often one month per year of service).

In your clause, the language “the maximum amount of pay or notice as prescribed by section 56 of the Alberta Employment Standards Code” could be vulnerable. If any part of it is inconsistent with the ESC (see next question), courts may find it void.

Case examples:

Kosowan v. Concept Electric Ltd., 2007 ABCA 85 — ambiguous or inconsistent wording invalidated a termination clause.

Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2019 ONCA 992 — Ontario case, but persuasive in Alberta; an internal inconsistency in reference to statutory minimums voided the clause.

So: it might not effectively limit entitlement to minimums if the wording is even slightly unclear or incorrect.

2. Error in Section Reference and Terminology

You’re correct that Section 56 of the Alberta ESC deals with termination notice or pay in lieu, not “severance pay.” Alberta doesn’t have a statutory severance requirement — only Ontario and federal law do.

This mislabeling and incorrect section reference could make the clause ambiguous. Courts in Alberta have invalidated termination clauses that:

-Cite the wrong statutory section, or
-Use inaccurate terminology that could confuse the employee about their rights.

An employee (and a court) could reasonably interpret the clause as misstating the law, making it unenforceable. Ambiguity always benefits the employee in these situations.

3. Exclusion of Regular Overtime from Termination Pay

If the employee regularly works and is paid for contractual overtime, that pay is part of “wages” under the Employment Standards Code (s. 1(1)(x)).

Section 56(1) requires notice or pay “at least equal to the wages the employee would have earned” during the notice period — meaning base pay + regular overtime + other guaranteed pay components.

If the employer excludes the consistent overtime pay, that would:

-Breach the Code’s minimums, and
-Further weaken the enforceability of the clause, since it would fail to meet statutory compliance.

It could also strengthen a wrongful dismissal claim, as courts would interpret the clause and payment practice together as inequitable or misleading.

4. Effect of the New Contract (New Role and Pay)

Because the employee:
-Accepted a new role,
-Received a substantial pay increase, and
-Signed a new employment contract,
the employer may argue that this was a new employment relationship starting January 2025.

However, courts look at continuity of employment, not merely a change in role or contract. If the employee remained with the same employer and there was no break in service, courts often find continuous service for calculating notice — unless the new contract clearly states prior service will not be recognized.

In this case, since he was promoted internally, it’s likely considered continuous service. Courts in Alberta (e.g., Ceccol v. Ontario Gymnastic Federation, applied in AB) are reluctant to reset service unless the change was so substantial it created an entirely new employment relationship.

Given 7.5 years of continuous service, the employee would likely retain that tenure for notice calculation purposes.

5. Possible Constructive Dismissal or Bad Faith Termination

If management is having him train his replacement without explanation, that raises potential issues:

-If his role is being materially reduced, reassigned, or eliminated without notice or agreement, that can constitute constructive dismissal — an employer-initiated change to a fundamental term.

-If they terminate him soon after the promotion without transparent reasons, there may also be an element of bad faith under Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, which could justify aggravated or moral damages.

Evidence that he’s being “replaced quietly” could help demonstrate the employer’s lack of good faith or honesty in the manner of dismissal, even if the termination itself is without cause.

Overall, the termination clause carries significant legal risk for the employer. Its ambiguity, incorrect reference to section 56, and misuse of the term “severance pay” make it likely unenforceable, exposing the employer to common law reasonable notice obligations. Excluding regular overtime from termination pay would likely breach the Employment Standards Code and further strengthen a wrongful dismissal claim. Although the employer might argue that the January 2025 promotion created a new employment relationship, the courts would probably find the employee’s service continuous for notice purposes. Finally, quietly replacing the employee without explanation could raise concerns of constructive dismissal or bad-faith conduct, potentially leading to additional damages.

I hope this helps.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Potential Misuse of BC ESA Leave Entitlements #97461

This is a delicate HR and compliance issue where fairness, due process, and consistency are essential. Here’s how to approach the situation professionally and lawfully:

1. Clarify the Legal and Policy Context

Since this involves Compassionate Care Leave, the Employment Standards Act (ESA) governs the employee’s entitlement.
Key points to remember:
-Employees are entitled to unpaid Compassionate Care Leave to care for a critically ill family member.
-The employer cannot deny the leave if appropriate documentation (a medical certificate) is provided.
-It’s not the employer’s role to assess the legitimacy of the medical situation beyond the documentation.

The company can, however, require the employee to provide the medical certificate and confirm the relationship to the family member.

2. Plan the Conversation Carefully

You should schedule a meeting that is non-accusatory, fact-seeking, and documented.
Here’s an outline for how to structure it:

a. Express Concern and Clarify Facts

Begin with empathy: “We understand this is a difficult time for your family.”

Confirm understanding of the leave request: “We’ve received your medical documentation and understand you’re requesting Compassionate Care Leave between [dates].”

Ask for clarification as needed — e.g., who the family member is, the nature of care required, and whether travel to India is necessary.

b. Acknowledge the Timing

You can gently note that you had previously discussed a vacation request for similar dates.

Phrase neutrally: “We did notice that the timeframe overlaps with the vacation request you had made earlier. Can you help us understand your current circumstances so we can ensure proper coverage while supporting your situation?”

This allows the employee to respond without feeling accused of dishonesty.

c. Outline Expectations

Reinforce that you take all leave requests seriously and must ensure coverage for the team.

Clarify the leave is unpaid, and that communication expectations remain (e.g., updates if plans change, confirming return date).

Document everything discussed.

3. Maintain Documentation and Consistency

Keep detailed records of both the vacation denial and the compassionate care leave request.

Ensure consistency with how other similar cases have been handled.

Avoid making comments that suggest disbelief — focus on policies and documentation requirements.

If any doubts remain, you can request a copy of the ESA-compliant medical certificate (if the one provided lacks specific details).

4. Balancing Trust and Due Diligence

Your Project Manager’s skepticism is understandable, but HR’s responsibility is to:
-Uphold the law.
-Protect the organization from claims of discrimination or reprisal.
-Maintain a fair and compassionate process.

Remind the PM that suspicion alone is not grounds to deny ESA leave. However, you can monitor for patterns of misuse and take appropriate steps later if evidence arises (e.g., inconsistent return, failure to provide required documentation).

Suggested Talking Points for the Meeting

“We want to make sure we fully understand your situation and provide the appropriate support.”

“Can you walk us through what care you’ll be providing during this time?”

“We’ll need to ensure proper documentation for your Compassionate Care Leave — can we confirm that we have all required paperwork?”

“Our goal is to support you while ensuring continuity for our team.”

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: OT and Piece Rate Bonus #97449

No worries at all Aleesha, I’m here to help! Ask as many questions as you have.

You’re asking a very good and important question, especially given the nature of your organization and the fact you want to give your President confident advice. I’ll outline what the law in British Columbia says, how it applies, and the risks your President should be aware of — and note this is general guidance, not legal advice (you may want to have it reviewed by counsel).

What the law says in BC

Under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) in British Columbia, for most employees:

-Standard hours are 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week.
-Overtime pay must be paid when the employee works more than:
-8 hours in a day (up to 12 hours) – at 1.5 × the regular wage (time-and-a-half).
-More than 12 hours in a day – at double time (2 ×).
-More than 40 hours in a week – at 1.5 × the regular wage (for the hours over 40).

These are minimum standards. You cannot contractually waive or substitute them in many cases.

There are some exemptions (for example certain managerial employees, professionals, some industries) or alternatives (averaging agreements) but the default is the above.

How this applies to “piece‐rate bonus instead of paying overtime”

From what you describe: the employer wants to pay staff on a piece‐rate basis (i.e., pay based on output) plus a “bonus” such that the total pay may end up higher than what overtime pay would be. The question: does that legal approach satisfy the overtime obligations?

Here are key issues to consider:

The method of compensation does not remove overtime entitlements
The law says “Employees are paid time-and-a-half … for hours worked over 8 in a day or 40 in a week, etc.”
It doesn’t say “unless you pay them piece rate or set a bonus”. Hence, simply paying a bonus in lieu of overtime is risky if the hours fall into overtime thresholds.

You must be able to identify the regular wage rate –
To compute overtime (1.5 × or 2×) you must know the “regular wage” for the hour. For piece‐rate or bonus systems this becomes complicated: what does “regular wage” mean when output determines pay? The legislation and interpretation guidelines assume an hourly rate base. Employers wanting to pay piece-rate must still ensure the compensation covers minimum wage and overtime requirements. (Though I did not find a clear ESA regulation with “piece rate allowed with overtime built in” in BC.)

If the piece rate always works out to more than what overtime would yield – that does not guarantee compliance.

Just because the employee in a particular week/or day ended up earning more than what 1.5× or 2× might have produced does not mean the employer is exempt from having to pay overtime or that the employer is safe. The statute sets the entitlement based on hours worked, not output. In past similar jurisdictions (outside BC) piece rate pay requires special design and monitoring to ensure it meets minimum standards; failing that the worker may claim unpaid overtime.

If an employee is under an averaging agreement or other special arrangement there may be some flexibility
The ESA allows for written “averaging agreements” for hours of work over 1-4 weeks such that overtime is calculated differently.

That may complicate matters but doesn’t automatically allow ignoring overtime pay. Also, some employees might be exempt from overtime under Regulation (for example certain professionals, managers). You’d need to check if your staff fall into any exemption.

Record-keeping and documentation are key
Because the piece‐rate + bonus strategy placing the employer in a risk area, you would want to document how you derived the regular wage, how overtime is accounted for (if at all), that the piece‐rate “bonus” is truly above and beyond what would have been overtime, and that the employment contract/arrangement makes clear how pay works. But even good documentation doesn’t override the statute’s minimum standards.

My conclusion / what I’d advise your President

Given all of this, what you told your President is essentially correct: The ESA’s overtime provisions apply and simply substituting a piece‐rate plus bonus does not automatically allow you to avoid paying overtime at the required 1.5× or 2× rates for hours over the thresholds.

So to advise:

You should assume that for most of your staff (unless they are clearly exempt under the Regulation) the overtime rules apply.

If you want to implement a piece‐rate + bonus structure in lieu of overtime, you should first evaluate very carefully:

Are the standard hours being exceeded (8/day or 40/week)?

Are you comfortable that your pay formula always results in equal or better compensation than what the overtime rate would produce?

Are you comfortable you can prove that for each employee for each day/week (because the law is about entitlement per hour).

Do you have contracts or policies that are clear and consistent and conform with the ESA (but note you cannot contract out of minimums).

Consider getting formal legal advice because if a claim is made by an employee (or group of them) the employer may have to pay arrears, interest, perhaps administrative penalties.

It may be safer (and simpler) to continue paying overtime in the statutory way, or to put in place a properly designed “output/piece‐rate” scheme that is assessed as compliant (i.e., you ensure regular pay + overtime equivalent) and document it well.

Given your organization (charity/non-profit in BC) and non-unionized state, you’ll want to avoid surprises such as large overtime claims. So the “piece‐rate bonus instead of OT” route is higher risk unless structured with precision and legal review.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Pay Transparency-HRIS systems #97404

Good questions. Here’s how the Pay Transparency Act treats your issues — and some practical considerations for your organization (a non-profit with fewer than the large-employer thresholds at present).

1. Does the legislation require an HRIS or analytic system?

No, the Act does not explicitly require the employer to have a dedicated HRIS (Human Resources Information System) or analytics tool. The legislation mandates certain data-collection, disclosure and reporting obligations, but does not prescribe the exact technology or system you must use.

More detail:

Under the Act and the associated Regulation, “reporting employers” must collect prescribed employee information (gender category, pay, hours, overtime, bonus, etc.) in order to prepare the annual “Pay Transparency Report”.

The guidance notes that employers should “collect and process pay rate information and identify differences in the prescribed gender categories.” (The Government of B.C. has also developed a Pay Transparency Reporting Tool (PTRT) to assist employers.)

Because these obligations involve data collection, aggregation and reporting, many employers have chosen to use HRIS or analytics-capable systems as a practical matter — but this is a choice or a best-practice rather than a legal hardware requirement.

Since you already conduct regular fair-pay analyses and likely have HR/payroll data, you’re well positioned. From a compliance/risk-mitigation perspective it is wise to ensure your systems can:

-Capture the required data (gender category, pay, hours, bonus, overtime) in a way consistent with the Regulation.
-Provide the ability to generate or extract reports for potential future “reporting employer” status.
-Ensure secure handling of personal/identity data (voluntary disclosures of gender, etc.), aligning with privacy obligations.

So while the law doesn’t force you to buy a specific HRIS, using one (or ensuring your current system supports these functions) is prudent.

2. Must your fair-pay analysis be documented and retained? For how long?

Yes, any analysis you conduct should be documented (i.e., you should keep records) — both as a good governance practice and to support compliance (and if you become a “reporting employer”).

There is no specific retention period in the Pay Transparency Act that covers “how long you must keep the analysis/reporting work-papers” for the pay transparency regime. However:

Under the Employment Standards Act, employers must keep payroll records for 4 years after the record is created. Given that the pay transparency regime draws on payroll/pay-hours/bonus data, retaining the underlying records for at least the same period (4 years) is consistent with broader statutory obligations and good practice.

In addition, the Act requires that the “pay transparency report … must continue to be available until the employer makes available a new report”.

Practical recommendation:
You should document your fair-pay analyses (methodology, data, findings, corrective plans) and retain those materials for at least 4 years, and preferably longer (e.g., 5-7 years) considering possible future audits, stakeholder inquiries or your organization’s evolving size/status. Ensure you have versioning or archival procedures so that you can reconstruct past analyses if needed.

3. Do you have reporting obligations under the Act?

Depends on your size and status. Right now, given your staff size (12 at one location + 30 at the other = total ~42 staff, excluding contractors) your organization likely falls below the current threshold for “reporting employer” under the Act.

Key points:

The Act phases in the “reporting employer” requirement by size:

-By November 1 2024: employers with 1,000+ employees must prepare & post a report.
-By November 1 2025: 300+ employees.
-By November 1 2026: 50+ employees.

Until you meet the “reporting employer” threshold, you are still subject to the other core obligations of the Act (job-posting salary disclosure, prohibition on asking pay history, anti-reprisal protections).
If you ever grow to meet/ exceed 50 employees by January 1 of a reporting year, you would need to prepare and publish a pay transparency report by the relevant November 1 deadline.

So for your current organization:

You likely do not yet have to prepare and publish the annual pay transparency report, but you should be ready: begin implementing policies, data-collection, and analysis readiness so that if/when you cross threshold you are compliant.

You must comply with:

-Including expected pay or pay-range in publicly-advertised job postings.
-Not asking applicants about their pay history (unless publicly available).
-Ensuring employees are not penalized for discussing pay or asking about the pay transparency report.

What this means for your organization (recommendations)

Given your size and current practices, I would suggest you treat this proactively:

Maintain your regular fair-pay analyses (you’re already doing them) and document them thoroughly (data, methodology, findings, corrective actions).

Update your job-posting templates so that any publicly-advertised roles include a realistic pay range (not “$ TBD” or “starting at”).

Review your recruitment documentation to ensure you do not ask applicants for their past pay history.

Update your pay transparency policy or procedure (and incorporate into your HRIS or tracking system) so you have:

-Mechanism to collect gender category disclosures (voluntary) when required.
-A process to provide employees an annual opportunity to update their gender/identity data.
-A defined archive/retention process for pay-data, analyses and reports (4-5 years minimum).

Monitor your employee count — if you approach or cross 50 employees, begin preparing for the report requirement (data-architecture, drafting the first report, publishing on a publicly-accessible site).

Communicate internally: Let your staff know that you’re implementing fair-pay transparency practices, that you comply with the Act, and that you protect employees who ask questions or share pay-related information.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Pay Transparency Policy Requirement #97403

Hi Susie! Good question. The short answer is yes, employers subject to the relevant pay-transparency legislation do need to take certain steps, but there is no general blanket federal law in Canada that says “every employer must have a pay transparency policy.” The obligations depend on jurisdiction and employer size.

What pay-transparency laws currently require

In the Pay Transparency Act (BC-specific), which came into effect May 11, 2023, employers must include the expected pay or pay-range in all public job postings.

This law also prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their past salary history (with limited exceptions) and protects employees who ask about or disclose pay from reprisals. It requires larger employers to prepare and submit annual pay‐transparency reports (e.g., gender-pay gap info) and make the report available to employees.

In the Working for Workers Four Act, effective Jan 1, 2026, employers with 25+ employees who post publicly advertised jobs must include “expected compensation or range” in the posting, among other rules (such as disclosing AI use in recruitment).

The federal level (for federally-regulated employers) has a related framework under the Pay Equity Act which mandates proactive pay‐equity plans, but it does not generally require posting salary ranges in all job ads across all employers in Canada.

Does the law require a specific “policy” document?

While the legislation requires certain actions (posting pay ranges, banning salary-history questions, reporting, etc.), it does not always explicitly require a standalone “pay transparency policy” document in all jurisdictions. The requirement is more about compliance with the substance of the law (job postings, disclosures, protections) than about creating a standalone policy heading “Pay Transparency Policy.”
That said, from a good-governance and risk-mitigation perspective, having a written internal policy (or procedure) is strongly advisable. It helps ensure consistent treatment, provides clarity for managers, and evidences proactive compliance.

I hope this helps! You can refer to our Pay Transparency Template if you want to implement one at your workplace or update your current policy.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Can the employer demand employee seek medical attention? #97402

Yes — it would be both appropriate and advisable to set clear behavioural expectations on her return, while also approaching the situation in a supportive, legally sound, and psychologically safe way. Here’s how you can handle it step by step:

1. Prepare for the Return-to-Work Conversation

When you contact her before the return date, confirm:

-Whether she feels ready to resume her duties.
-That her wellbeing is the top priority, and the conversation upon return will focus on ensuring a sustainable workload and healthy workplace interactions.

This sets the tone that the discussion is supportive, not disciplinary — even though boundaries will be clarified later.

2. Structure the Return Discussion

Hold a private, scheduled meeting with her and her manager (possibly with HR present). Key components:

a. Acknowledge the disclosure

Begin by recognizing her statement that she is feeling burnt out. This builds trust and signals that you’re taking it seriously.

“You mentioned before your break that you’ve been feeling burnt out. We appreciate you being open about that — we’d like to make sure you’re supported in returning to work successfully.”

b. Set behavioural expectations clearly

You can — and should — outline the specific behaviours that have caused disruption, focusing on observable conduct, not personality or emotion:

“We’ve observed that there have been tense interactions and outbursts that have affected the team dynamic. Going forward, we expect communication to remain respectful, even in moments of frustration.”

Avoid labeling (e.g., “angry” or “negative attitude”) and focus on impact (“has left team members feeling uneasy or unsure how to approach you”).

3. Include a Performance and Health Safety Clause

Yes, you can indicate that if the behaviours continue, a medical assessment may be necessary to determine fitness for work — but phrase it carefully as a duty-of-care measure, not a punishment.

Example phrasing:

“If these behaviours reoccur or there are ongoing signs of distress, we may need to request medical documentation to confirm that you are fit to safely perform your role and to identify if accommodations are needed. This is a standard part of ensuring both your well-being and the safety of the workplace.”

This aligns with your duty under occupational health and safety and human rights legislation to ensure employees are medically fit for work, while also preventing undue hardship on the team.

4. Document and Follow Up

-Document the meeting (who attended, what was said, and agreed next steps).
-Provide a summary email to the employee confirming expectations and supports.
-Schedule a follow-up check-in (e.g., after two weeks) to review progress and reiterate support.

5. Offer (Don’t Impose) Support Resources

Even if the employee resists self-reflection, gently remind her of:

Access to Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or community mental health resources.

Options to discuss workload adjustments or coaching.

Frame it as “resources available if you wish to use them,” rather than “you need help.”

6. When to Involve Medical or HR Specialists

If the concerning behaviour continues or escalates:

Consult HR or an occupational health professional (I do not count!).

A formal Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) or Independent Medical Examination (IME) may be appropriate.

Document that the trigger was a pattern of behaviour affecting safety or performance, not personal traits.

Best of luck!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Pre PIP plan #97398

Here are several options for what to call this stage, depending on tone and intent:

Performance Coaching Meeting / Plan

Tone: Supportive and developmental.

Why it works: Emphasizes improvement and partnership rather than punishment.

Example phrasing:

“We are currently in a Performance Coaching stage to provide guidance and support in meeting professional expectations.”

This works well in educational settings and aligns with the idea of professional growth rather than discipline.

Expectations Clarification Process

Tone: Neutral and procedural.

Why it works: Focuses on transparency and communication, without implying formal corrective action.

Example phrasing:

“The purpose of this Expectations Clarification process is to ensure mutual understanding of performance standards and responsibilities.”

This is good if you want to emphasize communication and fairness.

Professional Guidance / Development Meeting

Tone: Collegial and educational.

Why it works: Suggests mentorship and professional support, which fits well in a school context.

Example phrasing:

“The employee has been provided with Professional Guidance to align teaching practices with school expectations.”

This can easily be used again in the future without sounding disciplinary.

Informal Performance Review

Tone: Slightly more formal but still below a PIP.

Why it works: Recognized HR term for early intervention, signaling that performance is being monitored but not formally disciplined.

Example phrasing:

“An Informal Performance Review was conducted to address identified concerns and support improvement prior to considering a formal plan.”

This might be useful if you anticipate documenting this process more formally.

Performance Alignment / Improvement Discussion

Tone: Balanced and action-oriented.

Why it works: Suggests a proactive, mutual process.

Example phrasing:

“This Performance Alignment Discussion is intended to clarify expectations and support consistent performance moving forward.”

Recommendation

For a teacher in a private school, where tone and professional dignity matter, the most neutral yet clear term would likely be either:

“Performance Coaching Process”
or

“Expectations Clarification Process.”

These are professional, not punitive, and give you flexibility to later escalate to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if necessary.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee medical within probation #97392

Hello! Here are the five steps I recommend you follow for this situation:

1. Confirm the Facts and Gather Documentation

Before taking any formal steps, ensure you have:

-Documentation of the employee’s disclosure (e.g., when and how they informed you of the injury).
-Notes from the interview where they confirmed they were fit for the role.
-The job description outlining the physical requirements of the position.

This will be important for demonstrating that your actions are reasonable and consistent with employment and human rights laws.

2. Assess Your Duty to Accommodate

Even though the injury predates their employment, you still have a duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) if the injury constitutes a disability.

You must:

-Determine whether the arm injury qualifies as a disability.
-Explore whether the employee can perform modified or alternate duties, or whether accommodations (e.g., assistive devices, job modifications) would allow them to fulfill essential functions of the role.
-Document all accommodation discussions and efforts.

The duty to accommodate continues up to the point of undue hardship, considering cost, health, and safety.

3. Consider the Probationary Period

During probation, you can terminate employment more easily if:

-You’ve acted in good faith.
-The decision is not discriminatory (i.e., not based on a disability).
-You’ve fulfilled your duty to accommodate as reasonably as possible.

If you decide to terminate:

Ensure the decision is based on inability to perform essential job duties even with reasonable accommodation, not the existence of a disability itself.

Provide appropriate notice or pay in lieu, if required under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), depending on the length of service (employees with less than 3 months’ service typically aren’t entitled to notice).

4. Consult Legal or HR Guidance Before Acting

Because disability-related terminations are high-risk from a human rights standpoint, it’s advisable to:

Consult legal counsel or an HR professional experienced in Ontario employment law. While I am helpful, I am not a lawyer!!

Ensure any termination letter and rationale clearly reflect that the issue is bona fide inability to perform essential duties, not discrimination.

5. Document Everything

Keep written records of:

-All communications with the employee.
-Any accommodations considered or offered.
-Any medical information received (store confidentially).
-The reasoning behind your final decision.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Business Travel Policy #97371

That’s a great question! Setting a clear definition of “local” helps avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness in your travel and expense policy.
Given your setup — a non-profit in Canada, with hybrid work, most people working from home, two offices (12-staff location + 30-staff location) — here are factors to consider when defining “local place of business”:

Home vs. Office Travel

You’re saying travel to/from a local place of work (office/shared space) is not business travel for reimbursement. So the key is: when does the travel become business travel vs. a commute to the “local place of business”?

In a hybrid model, the employee’s “regular commute” may vary (home ↔ office; home ↔ client; home ↔ field site). You’ll want to clarify whether home → office is considered commuting (non-reimbursable) and home → field/worksite or remote location beyond a threshold is reimbursable.

Distance / radius threshold

~50 miles (~80 km) is a common threshold in US policies.

In a Canadian context, you might adopt a similar metric (e.g., “within 80 km of the employee’s home” or “within 50 km of the office”).

Alternatively, you could use time/duration (e.g., “travel that takes more than X minutes beyond the regular commute”) or distinct purpose (e.g., required visit to a remote work site).

Because your staff are hybrid, you might also define: if the travel is to a site or a meeting beyond the normal home-to-office commute, then it becomes reimbursable. Define “normal commute” for your organization.

Defining “local place of business”

You might say: “For the purposes of this policy, a local place of business is a worksite/office that is within X km / Y minutes of the employee’s home (or their usual office location). Travel to that site is considered commuting and not reimbursable.”

Then: “Travel beyond that radius (or beyond Y minutes) to perform business-related work at a site/location is considered business travel and may be reimbursed per policy.”

Hybrid nuance: home as “workplace”

Since staff work from home much of the time, the “regular commute” concept becomes more complex. For example: if their home is their regular base, and they travel to the office — is that “commute” or “business travel”?

One approach: establish that home is considered the regular place of work unless expressly required to travel to another site. Then travel from home to office (if the office is designated as a “regular” place of work for them) is considered commuting and non-reimbursable. However, travel from home (or office) to a site beyond the defined “local” radius (or to a remote project/field site) would be reimbursable business travel.

Clarity and equity

Whatever threshold you choose (e.g., 50 km, 75 km, 100 km), spell it out clearly in the policy.

Also clarify what “business related” means (i.e., required site, client meeting, training, etc) vs. regular home‐office commute.

Provide examples in the policy (e.g., “If you travel from your home to the city centre office (10 km) this is commuting; if you travel from your home to the project site 120 km away for a one-day meeting, this qualifies as business travel.”)

Consider local geography in BC (rural vs urban) and employee expectations.

My recommendation for your policy

Given your context (Canadian non-profit, two offices, hybrid home working), I’d suggest the following wording:

“Local Place of Business / Commuting Travel”
For purposes of this policy, travel to a regular work location (office or shared workspace) that is within 75 km (≈ 46 miles) of the employee’s home (or their designated regular work location) will be considered a normal commute and is not eligible for travel reimbursement.
Travel beyond 75 km (or an equivalent defined time, e.g., more than 1 hour one-way) to attend a worksite, client meeting, remote project location, or other business-related site is considered business travel and may be reimbursed for reasonable, business-related expenses.
This threshold may be adjusted by role/location based on operational needs (e.g., remote or field-based staff) and must be approved in writing by the Director/HR manager/Supervisor.

You can adjust the number (e.g., 50 km, 100 km) based on what makes sense for your region, staff spread, and travel patterns. If most staff are within a short distance of the offices (e.g., 20–30 km), you might set a lower threshold; if many commute from further away, you might use 100 km.

Some caveats to watch for

Ensure you define how “distance” is measured (e.g., by road from home address → travel destination using most direct route).

Consider exceptions: what if the travel is outside the “local” threshold but the employee’s home is farther away (e.g., rural)?

Ensure clarity on whether travel from home to office is always non-reimbursable or whether exceptions apply (for example if the employee’s home is remote and the office is the main worksite).

Also, ensure that the policy aligns with any relevant government funder requirements (especially for your non-profit funding). The reference to the federal cost principles in OMB Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200 states that costs must be consistent with the entity’s written policies.

Keep in mind tax/benefit implications (especially for reimbursement of travel vs commuting). For example, as the IRS says, travel must be “away from the general area of your tax home” for deductions.
IRS
While this is US tax law, similar underlying logic may apply in Canada (CRA views) when assessing the nature of commuting vs business travel.

I hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Sick Leave in BC #97364

Great question — this touches on the intersection between the Employment Standards Act (ESA) of British Columbia and human rights obligations. Here’s how it breaks down:

ESA Minimums (Paid Sick Leave)

Under the BC ESA, employees are entitled to 5 paid sick days and 3 unpaid sick days per year after 90 days of employment. These are minimum standards — once they are used up, the ESA doesn’t require employers to provide additional paid or unpaid leave for illness.

Beyond ESA: Human Rights Obligations

However, once an employee provides a doctor’s note stating that they cannot work for medical reasons, this typically engages the duty to accommodate under the BC Human Rights Code, not just the ESA.

If the employee’s illness or injury qualifies as a disability (which can include temporary conditions, depending on severity), you may be required to accommodate their absence up to the point of undue hardship.

This means:

-You can’t simply deny the leave because it exceeds ESA minimums.
-You should request medical information (not a diagnosis, but confirmation of limitations and expected return date).
-You must assess whether accommodating the absence is feasible operationally.
-“Undue hardship” is a high threshold — it usually requires significant cost or health/safety risk to others.

Managing Operational Impact

You’re entitled to manage legitimate operational concerns. Some best practices:
-Communicate with the employee about the expected duration and possible modified duties (if they can work part-time or light duty).
-Document your accommodation process and any steps taken.

If the absence truly disrupts your ability to meet project deadlines, consult HR or legal counsel before denying or modifying the leave — to ensure you’re meeting the duty to accommodate properly.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination with cause liability risk to employer #97357

This is a serious and sensitive situation, and it sounds like your organization acted promptly and appropriately. Here’s an overview of the key liability considerations and best practices following a termination for cause related to sexual comments toward a customer.

Employer Liability Exposure
a. Vicarious Liability

Employers can sometimes be held vicariously liable for an employee’s misconduct toward a customer if the behavior occurred “in the course of employment.”

If the inappropriate comments were made while the employee was performing work duties or interacting with the customer as part of their job, the employer could face potential exposure if the customer pursued a civil claim (e.g., for emotional distress, harassment, or negligence in hiring/supervision).

However, your swift termination, acknowledgment of the incident, and apology to the customer are strong mitigating factors showing due diligence and prompt corrective action.

b. Negligent Hiring or Retention

If the employee had a prior history of similar conduct or red flags that were ignored, an employer could be found negligent in hiring or retaining them.

If this was a first incident and the organization had no prior knowledge or reason to suspect such behavior, liability is low.

c. Human Rights and Occupational Safety

Although this incident primarily involves a customer, not a co-worker, it still intersects with your obligations under:

Human Rights legislation (to maintain a harassment-free service environment); and

Occupational Health and Safety legislation (to prevent workplace violence and harassment).

Your internal policies should reflect these duties — ensuring employees understand that harassment of anyone (customer, coworker, or vendor) is strictly prohibited.

Criminal and Civil Risk to the Employee

Since the police were called, any charges would be directed at the employee, not the employer.

If no charges have been laid, the police likely found insufficient grounds for criminal harassment or indecent communication.

Nonetheless, your internal disciplinary action (termination with cause) is independent of criminal proceedings and justified by the employee’s admitted conduct and breach of policy.

Strengthening the Employer’s Position

To further reduce risk and demonstrate due diligence:

Document everything — incident report, customer complaint, employee admission, investigation notes, termination letter, and apology to the customer.

Ensure your workplace harassment policy explicitly covers inappropriate conduct toward non-employees (e.g., clients, contractors, the public).

Conduct refresher training on workplace harassment and respectful conduct.

Follow up with the customer to confirm that they feel the issue has been resolved and that your organization has taken preventive steps.

Avoid disclosing details of the termination to other staff beyond what’s necessary (e.g., “the employee is no longer with the company”).

Recommendation
You’ve handled this situation appropriately: swift investigation, termination for cause, and apology to the affected customer. To further protect the organization, ensure policies and documentation align with your jurisdiction’s occupational health and safety and human rights requirements. If you haven’t already, it may be worthwhile to have legal counsel review the termination letter and incident documentation to confirm that your termination for cause aligns with provincial employment law standards.

I hope this helps and best of luck.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Record retention requirements and privacy legislation #97356

Yes – Ontario is a little more nuanced but here are my findings and recommendations.

Under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) in Ontario:

Employers must keep records for each employee of their name, address, and start date of employment. These must be kept for three years after the employment ends.
Ontario

For other records (hours, wages, etc) the same three-year retention after termination generally applies.

The ESA sets the minimum retention timeframe; it doesn’t necessarily prevent keeping longer records, but it does indicate how long they must be kept.

Privacy laws and employee personal information

There is no general Ontario provincial statute that governs private-sector employers’ collection/use/retention of employee personal information (outside of health information) analogous to FIPPA for public institutions.

Federally, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies to federally regulated enterprises and sets broad principles regarding personal information: collection, use, disclosure and retention must be limited, transparent, necessary, deceased when no longer required, etc.

The workplace privacy guidance from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada emphasizes that employee privacy rights persist (even for former employees) and that retention of personal information must be addressed.

Key privacy / retention principles

Some of the fundamental “fair information principles” relevant here are:

-Purpose limitation – collect only what’s needed for a stated purpose.
-Retention limitation – keep personal information only as long as necessary for the stated purpose.
-Transparency / policy – inform employees (or former employees) about what is collected, how long it will be kept, for what purpose.

What the law does not require / allow

The ESA gives a minimum retention period; it doesn’t mandate indefinite retention of all employee data.

There is no Ontario statute that says you must delete all employee personal information after X years (for private sector employers). The retention must be reasonable under privacy principles.

Blanket indefinite retention of personal information without a clear purpose and retention policy may raise privacy-risk issues.

Applying this to your scenario

You mention:

The CRA payroll records must be kept for 6 years + current year (for tax compliance).

You want to retain former employees’ name and position (and perhaps limited other info) beyond the minimum three-year ESA requirement.

Question: Would this be a breach of privacy?

Here’s how I’d analyse it:

Legitimate purpose: You have a legitimate business/tax purpose in keeping basic former employee information (name, position) for historical, auditing, or reference reasons. This supports purpose limitation.

Minimum requirement from ESA: For name/address/start date etc you must retain for at least 3 years after termination. If you keep longer, you are going beyond minimum—but that is not automatically prohibited.

Retention beyond that: The key is whether the extended retention remains justified (purpose still valid), documented, and proportionate. If you only keep “name + position” (low sensitivity) and you can show business value (e.g., for referencing past roles, verifying experience, responding to inquiries) then the privacy risk is low.

Sensitive vs non-sensitive info: The greater the sensitivity of the personal information (e.g., SIN, health information, detailed performance review, disciplinary records) the more careful you must be. Name + position is relatively benign compared to more sensitive personal data.

Transparency / policy: Have a clear retention and deletion policy that states: “We retain former employee basic records for X years (or until end of business need) then we review and either archive securely/deidentify or delete.” Communicate this to employees (or include in employment agreement/HR policy).

Secure storage: Even basic information must be protected from unauthorized access/disclosure.

Deletion/archival plan: After the business purpose ceases, you should delete or anonymise the data. For example if you say you’ll keep name+position for up to 10 years for reference, after 10 years you might move to a “former employees archive” or remove altogether.

Regulatory compliance (CRA): Because you have a regulatory requirement for payroll records (6 years + current year) you must retain certain data for tax audit purposes. That gives you a clear purpose and time frame. For other info (like name+position beyond that requirement) you need to ensure you still have a purpose.

So: Is it a breach of privacy?

In my view: It is unlikely to be a breach of privacy if you:

-Limit what you keep (name + position) to what you need.
-Have a documented purpose (e.g., auditing, historical reference).
-Have a retention limit or periodic review for deletion/archiving.
-Apply appropriate safeguards.
-Are transparent with employees.

It could become problematic if you keep large amounts of personal information indefinitely without purpose or policy, or if the information is more sensitive than necessary.

Practical recommendations for your checklist

Here are some steps to build into your retention checklist to ensure you’re aligned with ESA + privacy best practices:

-Record the regulatory retention requirement:
-Payroll tax / CRA related: keep for 6 years + current year (you have).
-ESA minimum: name/address/start date etc for 3 years after termination.
-Define your business-purpose extension:
Example: Keep “name + position (and termination date)” for up to X years (e.g., 10 years) for reference/historical purposes.
-Document rationale for X years.
-Classify data types:
Minimal (name + position + termination date) → lower sensitivity → you may keep longer.
More sensitive (home address, SIN, health info, disciplinary records) → limit retention and delete when no longer needed.
-Establish retention review/deletion schedule:
For each data class define: retention period, storage format, deletion method, review trigger.
Example: Every year review “former employee basic records older than X years” for deletion or archival.

Transparency / policy:

Include in your HR/Privacy policy: that you retain certain former employee basic records, for how long, why, how they can request their data etc.

Consider letting former employees (or employees) know about the retention policy.

Safeguards:

-Ensure access control, encryption where appropriate, secure deletion procedures.
-Ensure when archived the data is still protected.
-Document decision-making:
-Document how you determined the retention period and business rationale in case you need to justify it (e.g., if challenged).

A few nuances & caveats

If your organization is federally regulated (banks, airlines, telecoms), then PIPEDA (and its privacy obligations) apply. Then your obligations around retention, access and correction are stricter. In Ontario private sector for provincially-regulated employers there’s less specific statute but best practice is still to follow PIPEDA-style principles.

Even in private sector, there is emerging case law around employee privacy expectation (especially with electronic devices) which emphasizes that employers must still respect privacy rights and not treat “anything goes”.

Just because you can retain something doesn’t mean you should retain it indefinitely. Privacy risk grows over time (lost records, accumulation of data, cross-reference risk).

If you share, disclose, or transfer former employee personal information (even basic name/position) externally, you must also consider privacy obligations around disclosure and consent.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Performance Improvement Plan #97353

These are great and nuanced HR questions! Let’s address them one by one in the context of Ontario employment law and best HR practices.

Implementing a PIP After a Performance Appraisal

While it’s best practice to introduce a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) soon after a performance review that identifies deficiencies, you can still implement a PIP later if performance has declined after the appraisal. The key is to ensure that:

You have clear, recent documentation of the performance issues.

You can demonstrate that these concerns are new or escalating since the last performance appraisal.

The timing of the PIP is linked to observable performance issues, not arbitrary.

Employers often need to implement a PIP mid-cycle when performance deteriorates. Just ensure that it doesn’t appear retaliatory or inconsistent with prior documentation.

Implementing a PIP After a Salary Increase

A salary increase following a performance review doesn’t prevent you from issuing a PIP later. However, optics matter:

A raise signals satisfactory performance at that time.

If you introduce a PIP shortly afterward, it could raise questions about fairness or timing.

To mitigate that risk:

Clearly show that the performance problems arose or worsened after the raise.

Document specific incidents or quality issues with dates.

In communications, frame the PIP as a supportive step to help the employee regain prior performance levels.

So yes, a PIP can still be used — the critical factor is causal timing and documentation.

Whether to Wait Until the Project Is Complete

Generally, address issues as they arise, especially if they’re recurring or significant. Waiting until the project ends can:

Weaken the employer’s position by suggesting tacit acceptance of substandard work.

Limit the opportunity for the employee to correct course.

Lead to compounding errors or project impacts.

However, if the employee’s work is critical to project completion and immediate discipline could jeopardize delivery, you can document current issues, provide verbal feedback, and formalize the PIP immediately after completion.
Balance timing and operational risk, but don’t let the behaviour go unaddressed.

If the Employee Cites Personal or Family Issues

When personal factors (e.g., childcare, family illness, etc.) are affecting performance:

Ask if accommodations are needed, consistent with the employer’s duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

You can still proceed with a PIP, but:

Adjust timelines or expectations as appropriate if accommodations are requested.

Document that you considered accommodations.

Frame the PIP as a collaborative tool, not punishment.

If no accommodation is requested, or if accommodations have been made and performance issues persist, you may continue with the PIP process as usual.

I hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Absenteeism Article in a Collective Agreement #97351

Yes, you do have grounds to include a clause addressing absenteeism, as long as:

It aligns with statutory entitlements (e.g., ESA, human rights accommodation obligations, and collective agreement leave provisions).

It does not create ambiguity that could be seen as overriding those statutory or agreed leaves.

The language is consistent with progressive discipline principles already recognized in arbitral jurisprudence.

Many collective agreements include similar provisions, often under “Attendance Management”, “Discipline”, or “Employee Responsibilities”. The goal is to clearly set expectations about attendance and reporting, while still recognizing legitimate absences.

Risks in the Current Wording

Your proposed wording is clear but may raise union pushback on two fronts:

“Repeated or excessive absenteeism” — can be seen as subjective unless defined or contextualized.

“Up to and including termination of employment” — signals a disciplinary framing, which unions may argue should instead be addressed under existing discipline or attendance management policies.

The union might counter that attendance issues should be managed through a non-disciplinary attendance management process (e.g., counselling and accommodation steps) rather than as a disciplinary matter unless there’s misconduct (e.g., failure to report).

Suggested Alternative Wording

Here are a few softer, but still enforceable alternatives that preserve management’s flexibility:

Option A — Balanced with “May Be Addressed”

“Employees are expected to maintain regular attendance and adhere to established reporting procedures. Repeated failure to meet attendance expectations, without reasonable justification, may be addressed through the employer’s attendance management or progressive discipline process, as appropriate.”

-Keeps flexibility but uses a less punitive tone.
-Recognizes that not all absenteeism is disciplinary.
-Links to existing policies rather than creating a new standalone rule.

Option B — For Inclusion under “Attendance and Reporting”

“Employees are required to attend work regularly and follow established reporting procedures when absent. Unexplained or repeated absences beyond statutory or agreed-upon entitlements may be subject to review and appropriate action, which may include progressive discipline.”

-Emphasizes accountability.
-Uses “may be subject to review” to soften disciplinary tone.
-Maintains the employer’s right to act if attendance problems persist.

Option C — For a Policy Reference Clause

“The parties agree that attendance expectations and procedures shall be outlined in the Employer’s Attendance Management Policy. Repeated failure to meet these expectations may result in appropriate corrective action.”

-Defers specifics to policy (which can be amended later without reopening the agreement).
-Keeps the CBA language general but enforceable.

Recommendation

If the union is resistant to disciplinary language, Option A or C is most likely to pass — they retain your flexibility to discipline when misconduct occurs (e.g., no-shows), while emphasizing fairness and consistency.

If your organization’s culture or operational impact of absenteeism is severe (e.g., safety-critical, small teams), you could keep “progressive discipline” explicit but balance it with “as appropriate” or “in accordance with established policies.”

I hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts