Presenteeism results in productivity loss, workplace epidemics, or poor health and exhaustion, which can lead to higher absenteeism for longer periods or accidents. Whether it is a physical or mental ailment, employees should be staying home when they are unable to be present at work. Being physically at work is different than being present at work. It is one thing to show up at work; it’s another thing to be actually productive while at work.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A case where an employee was denied entitlement to ongoing WSIB benefits because of a pre-existing back condition; an income tax folio on benefits and allowances received, published by the CRA; a case that deals with an employer’s ability to randomly test for drugs and alcohol.
By now you have likely heard of the new gaming phenomenon sweeping the globe: Pokémon GO. For employers, Pokémon GO has provided some great real world examples of how the introduction of a new technology can impact the workforce. Consider the following.
A few months ago we commented on a case where a fixed term contract caused an employer significant liability because it did not allow for early termination prior to the end of the fixed term. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision, Howard v. Benson Group Inc., which provides a further warning about the use of fixed term contracts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal weighed in, to some extent, on the hot issue of enforceability of termination clauses in a recent decision. In this case, the clause at issue was written in French. The Applicant argued that the Motion Judge’s interpretation of the clause only referred to “notice” and not “severance” and therefore the termination clause was an unlawful attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act because it did not expressly provide for the payment of severance and there are a number of cases suggesting such clauses are void.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A case that explains the meaning of a “probationary” period for an employee; a case that awards employee on fixed-term contract; and an article that looks at current and upcoming minimum wage.
With the hot Toronto tech skills market and the favourable dollar exchange, US employers are increasingly looking north of the border to expand for new business and for new talent. Here are four common mistakes US employers will want to avoid:
“Bob is harassing me.” Your spidey senses should be tingling, because some kind of investigation should be taking place soon. If not, consider what happened when an employee at CBC complained about Jian Ghomeshi and was ignored or when an employee at the TO2015 Pan American games complained about David Peterson and her complaint was allegedly not taken seriously. Here are three questions to consider when someone makes a harassment complaint.
Court of Appeal overturns finding that respondent must admit discrimination to settle a human rights complaint
Under the Nova Scotia Human Rights framework, a Board of Inquiry must approve any settlement reached after a complaint is referred to a hearing before the Board. Recently, in Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v Grant, 2016 NSCA 37, a Board of Inquiry refused to approve a settlement. The Board concluded that it could not approve a settlement unless the respondent admitted discrimination. As the respondent in this matter had not made such an admission, the Board refused to grant the necessary approval—barring a settlement that the parties were willing to accept.
It is not uncommon for an organization to move their offices, or to “transfer” an employee from one location to another. Sometimes, the move is across the street, while other moves are across the country or farther. What happens if an employee refuses to relocate?
July 3, 2016 marked the first time a Canadian Prime Minister marched in Toronto’s Pride parade. But some may be wondering, ‘Do Canadian laws currently protect LGBT rights in the workplace, and have they kept up with the evolving climate of increased inclusion?’ The answer depends on the particular jurisdiction involved because the issue is addressed in human rights legislation across Canada.
All employment relationships in Ontario are deemed to be contractual, whether or not a written contract is in place between the parties. When there is no written contract, the common law (judge-made law) imports a number of obligations into the contract that will bind the employer and the employee.
In the recent decision of Gagnon & Associates Inc. the Court reminds us that both employers and employees have the obligation to provide reasonable notice of intention to terminate the employment relationship.