[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination Notice Provisions #97249

This is a very common situation in Ontario when organizations evolve their employment templates over time but haven’t standardized past agreements. There are several legal and practical considerations here under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and common law.

Here’s a structured breakdown:

1. Reducing Termination Provisions for Existing Employees

Under Ontario law, you cannot unilaterally reduce termination entitlements that are part of an employee’s existing contract, even if they move into a new role internally. A termination clause that provides (e.g.) 20 weeks’ pay forms part of the contractual terms. To reduce that entitlement, you would need to give the employee “consideration” (something of value beyond continued employment, such as a signing bonus, salary increase, promotion, or extra vacation).

If you simply issue a new contract with a lower termination cap (e.g., 10 weeks), it will likely not be enforceable unless proper consideration is given and the employee voluntarily signs. If they refuse to sign, you cannot force the change, and their original contractual entitlements remain in effect.

Important: Even if you introduce a new template, the older contract continues to govern unless the employee signs a valid new agreement with fresh consideration.

2. Internal Role Changes: Special Consideration

If an employee moves into a genuinely new role — especially with significant changes in responsibilities, compensation, or seniority — you can make signing a new contract a condition of accepting the new role. However:

The new agreement must be presented before the role change takes effect.

The offer must clearly state that accepting the new role is contingent on signing the new contract.

The employee must have a reasonable opportunity to review and seek advice.

If the internal role change is minor or mostly a title change, courts often see this as a continuation of employment, meaning the old termination clause still applies.

3. Determining Termination Pay Above ESA Minimums

Beyond ESA minimums, employers have discretion to set enhanced contractual termination entitlements. There’s no legal “formula” for this. That said, best practices for determining standardized termination pay often include:

Seniority or years of service (e.g., 1 week per year of service, capped at X weeks).

Position level (e.g., executives vs. front-line staff).

Market comparables in your sector.

Budget predictability — clear caps (like 10 weeks) are increasingly common to manage liability exposure.

Once you standardize, consistency is key to avoid claims of unequal treatment.

4. Grandfathering vs. Re-Issuing Contracts

If you want to standardize termination provisions, you have two options:

Option A: Grandfather existing contracts

Leave older contracts intact with their more generous provisions.

Apply the new standard to new hires and any future internal promotions where a new contract is signed.
Low legal risk, but creates internal inequities for a time.

Option B: Reissue contracts to existing employees

You can offer new standardized contracts to all employees, but you must provide consideration for those whose termination terms are being reduced.

If they refuse to sign, their old contract remains valid.

If you proceed without consideration, the clause can be challenged and struck down later.

If the role is not changing, you cannot simply issue a new contract with lower termination terms and expect it to override the old one.

5. If an Employee Refuses to Sign

If someone refuses to sign a contract with reduced termination entitlements:

Their existing contract remains in force.

You cannot discipline or terminate them solely for refusing to sign.

For future promotions, you could make signing the new contract a condition of accepting the new role, as long as that’s handled properly.

Practical Next Steps
-Audit current contracts to identify variations in termination clauses.
-Develop a standardized policy (e.g., 1 week per year of service, capped at 10 weeks).
-For future hires and promotions, use the new template consistently.
-For existing employees with more generous provisions, either:
-Grandfather their existing terms; or
-Offer a new contract with consideration if you want to align their entitlements.
-Consider consulting employment counsel to ensure the language of the new termination clause is ESA-compliant and enforceable (many clauses are struck down due to wording errors).

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Benefits Reductions #97245

Yes, consent is typically possible to correct an administrative error where the agreement mistakenly listed a higher tier of benefits instead of the intended correct tier. Since this is a downward adjustment, parties are generally cautious. To strengthen acceptance:

-Acknowledge the error clearly: State that the higher tier was included in error and was never intended.

-Transparency: Provide a copy of the original proposal, quote, or internal documentation showing the correct tier was always intended.

-Mutual agreement: Secure written consent from the other party that they understand and agree the correction reflects the true intent.

Your suggestion to delay the correction until the end of the year is wise. It avoids immediate reduction of benefits and helps preserve goodwill. This can be presented as:

-Interim grace period: Confirm that the higher-tier benefits will continue until December 31.

-Effective date alignment: Amendment takes effect January 1, giving the other party certainty and avoiding disruption.

-Voluntary fairness: Position the delay as a goodwill gesture, which makes the amendment more palatable.

Concerns to Address

Here are key issues to resolve so the amendment is acceptable:

Retroactivity: Ensure the amendment is not retroactive. Benefits already provided under the higher tier should not be clawed back.

Clarity: Wording must clearly state the intended tier, effective date, and that this replaces the erroneous language.

Employee/third-party impact: If this relates to staff, ensure they are not unfairly disadvantaged mid-year. If it relates to a supplier or partner, confirm service commitments remain consistent until the amendment date.

Regulatory/funding compliance: For charities/non-profits, confirm with funders that changing benefit tiers won’t conflict with grant terms or reporting obligations.

Future proofing: Add a clause that any corrections to clerical/administrative errors can be made by mutual written agreement, to avoid similar issues later.

I recommend that you draft an amendment letter that:

-States the error and identifies the correct tier.

-Confirms benefits will remain at the higher tier until Dec 31.

-Amends the agreement effective Jan 1 to reflect the correct tier.

-Obtains signatures from both parties.

Best of luck!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Piercings and Hair Color #97138

Hi! Yes, we have an attire and grooming policy that can be adjusted for any workplace.

Hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #97080

This is a delicate situation because it involves both employment law and human rights considerations.

Probationary Employment & Termination

In most provinces, probationary periods give employers some leeway to assess suitability.

Extending probation (as you did, from 3 to 6 months) is allowed if the employment agreement or policy permits it and it’s communicated clearly.

During probation, employers can generally terminate with less notice, provided the termination is not discriminatory and meets minimum employment standards.

Medical Leave and Human Rights Obligations

Because the absences are supported by doctor’s notes and relate to anxiety/mental health, this is considered a disability under Canadian human rights legislation.

Employers have a duty to accommodate disabilities to the point of undue hardship. This means:

You cannot terminate because of the disability or absences tied directly to it, unless you can show undue hardship (e.g., safety, cost, or operational disruption).

Encouraging EAP was a good step—you’re showing support and accommodation.

“Can we terminate once he’s healthy?”

If you wait until he returns with a clean bill of health, you must be careful.

Terminating immediately after recovery may appear as retaliation for his disability-related absences.

Even if technically on probation, this could expose your organization to a human rights complaint.

You would need to demonstrate that the decision is based on non-discriminatory factors (e.g., performance issues unrelated to illness, conduct, operational requirements).

Best Practices & Options

Document everything: Keep records of absences, notes, accommodations offered, and any performance issues.

Assess undue hardship: If the absences seriously undermine operations (especially in safety-sensitive roles like truck driving), you may be closer to demonstrating undue hardship.

Consider alternatives:

Extending probation again if possible.

Offering modified duties or a gradual return-to-work plan.

Consulting an employment lawyer before any termination decision.

Risk Management

If you terminate solely because of health-related absences, you risk a human rights claim.

If you terminate citing clear, well-documented operational concerns (e.g., inability to meet the attendance or reliability standards of a truck driver role despite accommodation), you may have legal footing.

Recommendation: Do not plan to terminate as soon as he gets a clean bill of health. Instead, wait, evaluate his ability to meet job requirements upon return, and only consider termination if ongoing concerns exist despite accommodation. Before acting, I strongly suggest seeking an employment lawyer’s opinion to ensure compliance with your province’s employment and human rights laws.

-HRInsider Staff

[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

[Author]

Posts