First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Employee Relations

Does a 4-day work week work for your business?

For each individual business, it will depend on whether a 4-day work week means reducing hours, or simply compacting the same hours into less time. Some research has shown that workplaces can maintain the same level of productivity with staff working 32 hours a week as they do with teams working a full 40 hours.

 

, , , , ,

Refuse, snooze & lose

For workplaces that operate on shift work, dealing with employee refusals to change shifts (especially to night shift) happens all too often.

 

, , ,

Mass termination and working notice requirements clarified by Ontario Court of Appeal

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified employers’ notice obligations in the event of business closure, particularly with respect to mass termination notice requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) and “working notice” more broadly.

 

, , , , , ,

Duty to accommodate may be triggered even when employee does not request accommodation

As we all know, employers are required to accommodate individuals to the point of “undue hardship” where the need for accommodation relates to a ground protected by human rights legislation, such as disability.

 

,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with and EI claim and Service Canada’s opinion, metal stress injuries at work and labour relations changes under Bill 66.

 

, , ,

Let’s talk ergonomics!

You may be scratching your head at our title. What’s ergonomics got to do with law? Maybe even asking, what the heck is ergonomics? Well in this post we will answer both of those questions and tell you why workplace ergonomics should be on the radar of employees and employers alike.

 

, , ,

R v Jarvis: the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the interpretation of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the context of section 162(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada

On February 14, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in R v Jarvis with its interpretation of the meaning of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the context of section 162(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada involving a criminal offence of voyeurism.

 

, , ,

Has BC Court opened the door to more court claims of harassment?

Since the early 1980s, plaintiffs have been precluded from bringing court actions solely predicated on suffering discrimination or harassment under human rights legislation.

 

,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the 2019-20 Budget, privacy guidelines in Alberta for managing emails and what happens when an employer overpays an employee by mistake.

 

, , , ,

Bad behaviour and termination

The gut reaction of most employers when they have to deal with an employee who has behaved in an outrageous fashion is to terminate the employee in question without much inquiry into the background of the conduct.

 

, , , , , ,

Plaintiff wins $114,082 but pays costs to the defendant of $200,000

A plaintiff was awarded 12 months notice but because she had been on STD and LTD during this same period, her actual damages were only $14,082. She was also awarded Honda or moral damages of $100,000.

 

, ,

Clauses to include in an employment contract

Employers in Ontario should require employees to sign an employment contract before starting work.

 

, ,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with a new statutory holiday, an overhaul of health care and a new minimum wage.

 

, , ,

Human rights – Your duty as an employer

In 2017, 66% of all human rights claims were employment-related. Employers have the duty to be compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

 

, , ,

Court of Appeal says: No tort of harassment in Ontario

In a unanimous decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that there is no tort of harassment in Ontario. In Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court overturned the trial decision which had found that the tort did exist.

 

, ,

Previous Posts Next posts