[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for What is the expected duration of time that an employer is required to continue to pay the health benefit of an injured worker on Saskatchewan WCB? #87104

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your Q. Employers pay premiums for workers and the WCB pays health benefits if workers get injured. It’s basically an insurance scheme. Not sure if your Q is how long must WCB pay health benefits or how long must employer pay premiums if worker gets injured. If it’s the former, it depends on a whole bunch of complex factors; if it’s the latter, I believe the answer is that premiums must be paid for as long as a worker is on the active payroll. If this doesn’t help, pls feel free to loop back with me. glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Pay Increase For First Aid Attendants #87103

I haven’t heard anything about that and I check the Employment Standards Division at least once a month–including just 2 days ago. But I’ll let u know if I do come across anything. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for ROE for casual employees #87102

No, this would not be considered a break in employment. And it would be appropriate to execute a new contract even if the employment terms are the same as the previous one. I apologize for keeping you waiting for a week. I actually got an answer from my payroll expert a few days ago but totally forgot to send it. Will try and do better next time. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Late Resignation Confirmation #87101

In re-reading it, I think I might have overlooked an aspect of your Q, namely, what you should do AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Having missed the window to send the confirmation letter–or request that the employee put the resignation in writing him/herself–should you do it now? Answer: It depends on how much time has passed. If we’re talking a week or so, it probably makes sense to do so. But if it’s been longer than that, requesting confirmation could be needlessly provocative and you may be better off letting sleeping dog lies and relying on the confirmation you already have.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Late Resignation Confirmation #87100

It’s not required but it may help. Let me explain. As you know, questions over whether employees really resigned or were terminated are a common source of litigation. The standard:
>The employee must provide clear and unambiguous of intent to resign
> Resignation must be voluntary and sincere
A written text message may be enough to meet these requirements (see the case summary below). But I’d suggest asking the employee to put the resignation in writing first. If he/she doesn’t want to do that, I’d send the confirmation notice and ask the employee to sign it and send back to you. Hope that helps. Glenn
P.S.A text message may be a valid resignation. We recently wrote about a Sask. case dealing with this issue:
Texting ‘I Quit’ to Boss While in a Drunken Stupor Is a Real Resignation
A bartender celebrating his 35th birthday while off duty on Saturday night sent his boss a text: “I quit. Find someone else to work Tuesday.” The next day, he texted an apology and claimed he was drunk. But this wasn’t the first time the bartender’s drinking had gotten him into hot water with his employer. So, the employer decided to just accept his resignation. The union argued that the bartender was drunk and obviously didn’t mean to resign. A resignation doesn’t count unless it’s sincere, voluntary and unambiguous. But the Sask. arbitrator said this resignation met the standard: the bartender put it in writing, didn’t show up for his next shifts and waited over a week for the meeting between the employer and union to try and formally take it back [Unitehere! Local 41 v Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans Club #38, 2019 CanLII 10712 (SK LA), Feb. 7, 2019].

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Employment Standards for Professionals #87099

The Manitoba Employment Standards Regulations, https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/laws/regu/man-reg-6-2007/latest/man-reg-6-2007.pdf  list the ESC exemptions. Section 5 deals with professionals. It says:
Professions 5
Except for Divisions 5 (annual vacations and vacation allowances), 9 (unpaid leaves) and 13 (equal wages) and subdivisions 1 and 3 of
Division 10 (termination of employment), Part 2 does not apply to an employee who
(a) is qualified to practise and is practising or employed in a profession that is governed underan Act of the Legislature that applies solely to the profession; or
(b) is registered or enrolled and employed as astudent-in-training in respect of such a profession
Check the other parts of the Regs. for ESC application to other occupations and industries. Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Job Requirements – Driver’s License #87098

Based on what you describe, I don’t see any legal ramifications. It’s pretty straightforward. An employee doesn’t have one of the essential qualifications of the job. There’s no indication that he belongs to any of the protected groups under human rights laws–age, disability, sex, race, religion, etc. And even if he was, a strong case can be made that having a driver’s licence is a bona fide occupational requirement for the position.
Other potential pitfalls to consider: Would firing the employee violate the terms of any contractual agreement or a collective agreement? Did you make any promises to the employee that he wouldn’t be fired for not having a driver’s licence? Barring any of these things–and they seem like remote possibilities–you should be good to go. Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Consideration Given for New contracts #87097

Thanks so much for your help.
In this case we do not have anything written that states employees receive a raise each year, it has just become customary for us to do this. So technically we could not provide raises one year and there would be no documentation that we were doing anything wrong. Does that change anything?

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Consideration Given for New contracts #87096

Funny you should ask. We just did a bunch of stuff on precisely that issue, i.e., the need to provide consideration for contract changes. If it’s not up yet and u want to see it, email me at glennd@bongarde.com and I’ll send it to u.
As for your specific question, NO, a raise that was previously agreed to would not constitute consideration. Basic contract law: Something you’re already contractually obligated to do isn’t consideration. You need to provide some form of new value. Of course, this is assuming that the raise is exactly the one agreed to previously. If you increase the raise amount or offer more generous terms, that would be consideration.
Hope that  helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Employee requesting to reduce hours #87095

It depends. Legally, the employee is entitled to reasonable accommodations on the basis of family status. That includes schedule changes enabling employees to meet caregiving needs. HOWEVER, you don’t have to make an accommodation if it would impose undue hardship.
The big question: Are the employee’s requested schedule changes a reasonable accommodation or an undue hardship? That’s a tough call, especially since I don’t know all the facts. But recognize that you have the burden of showing that the requested accommodation is undue hardship. Also recognize that mere inconvenience isn’t enough. You’ll have to show that accommodating the employee’s request would impose serious costs or disruption to your business. Here’s some excellent Guidance from Alberta on what to consider in trying to determine if a requested accommodation would impose undue hardship:
****
.To determine if undue hardship would occur, the employer should review factors such as:

• Financial costs-Financial costs must be substantial in order to be found to cause undue hardship. They must be so significant that they would substantially affect productivity or efficiency of the employer responsible for the accommodation. Accommodation measures could result in lost revenue, which should be taken into account when assessing undue hardship. However, if lost revenue due to accommodation would be offset by increased productivity, tax exemptions, grants, subsidies or other gains, then undue hardship may not be a factor. Financial costs do not include the expense of complying with other legislation or regulations, such as building codes (for example, providing wheelchair accessible washrooms or separate washroom facilities for men and women).
• Size and resources of the employer– The cost of modifying premises or equipment and the ability to amortize such costs will be taken into consideration when assessing if there is undue hardship. The larger the operation, the more likely it is that it can afford to support a wider range of accommodations without undue hardship.
• Disruption of operations-The extent to which the inconvenience would prevent the employer from carrying out essential business will be a factor when assessing undue hardship. For example, modifying a workspace in a way that substantially interferes with workflow may be considered too disruptive to the workplace. Also where there is no productive work available to offer to the employee, accommodation may be an undue hardship.
•  Morale problems of other employees brought about by the accommodation-Morale problems could be due to the negative impact of increased workload on other employees and a requirement to work too much overtime. If other employees begin to experience sleep difficulties or other health issues brought about by the accommodation of a particular employee, then the accommodation may be an undue hardship.
• Substantial interference with the rights of other individuals or groups-A proposed accommodation should not interfere significantly with the rights of others or discriminate against them. For example, a substantial departure from the terms of a collective agreement could be a serious concern to other employees. However, the objections of other employees must be based on well-grounded concerns that their rights will be affected.
• Interchangeability of work force and facilities-Whether an employer could relocate employees to other positions on a temporary or permanent basis is a factor in determining undue hardship. This may be easier for a larger company.
• Health and safety concerns-Where safety is a concern, consider the level of risk and who bears that risk. For example, consider if the accommodation would violate health and safety regulations. There would be an undue hardship if accommodation sacrificed safety for either the employee or others.
• ******
• Hope that helps. Glenn.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Progressive Discipline- Ontario #87094

I’ll be happy to talk to you. I’ll ring you up now. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Setting up a new HR Office #87093

Here are some resources to get you going:
https://kissflow.com/hr-process/human-resource-information-system-hris/
https://connectsus.com/blog/hr-department-documents
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/five-components-human-resource-management-system-64231.html
http://www.itinfo.am/eng/human-resource-management/
https://humaninterest.com/blog/startup-hr-checklist/
https://searchhrsoftware.techtarget.com/definition/HRIS

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Travel time on weekend #87092

From our payroll expert, Alan McEwen:
It really depends on the type of employee.
If this person is truly salaried, i.e. the pay doesn’t vary based on differences in time spent, and if the person is exempt from overtime requirements, i.e. a manager, then there is no requirement to pay anything.
At the other end of the scale is an hourly paid person or a person subject to employment standards overtime, if the travel is required by the employer for work purposes, then travel time is mostly considered paid working time

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for How long do we need to keep performance review documentation on file for an employee? #87091

I’d suggest retaining the records for 2 years after the individual’s employment ends since that’s the statute of limitations for bringing wrongful dismissal and other employment claims in BC. Exception: Claims for acts or omissions committed before June 1, 2013, are still subject to the old statute of limitations of 6 years. As a result, you might want to hang onto performance reviews provided on or before that date for 6 years after the employment ends.
Hope that helps and sorry to keep you waiting so long. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Termination of Casual Employee #87090

General Rule: Just cause doesn’t apply to probationary employment. In other words, you can terminate probationary employees during the probationary period (90 days in Alberta) for lack of suitability, which is a much easier standard for employers to meet than just cause. Casual employees would likely fall under the probationary employment rules.
So, if the casual employee has been with you for less than the required 90 days, you don’t need just cause and may not even need to follow your progressive discipline policy since “lack of suitability” is a non-disciplinary standard. In other words, a probationary employee can be unsuitable, even if he/she doesn’t commit any infractions worthy of discipline. Once the 90 days are up, the ESC termination and just cause rules kick in.
As I interpret the collective agreement, the above rules apply even if the employee is a union member covered by the agreement. So, during the first 3 months, you can apply the lack of suitability standard. Where things get tricky is when employees have more than the 90 days required by the Alberta ESC and less than the 6 months required to end probationary status under the collective agreement. To me, it sounds like the collective agreement is extending the lack of suitability window for 3 extra months beyond the 90 days. But there may be other language clarifying that somewhere else in the agreement. It also depends on the intent of the parties in negotiating that provision.
To review:
First 90 days: Lack of suitability, no progressive discipline
Month 3 to Month 6: For union member: Lack of suitability, no progressive discipline; For non-union member: Just cause, progressive discipline
After Month 6: Just cause and progressive discipline for all employees
Hope that helps. Glenn

[Author]

Posts