When a company purchases another business, it is important to consider the legal implications respecting the status of employees. The Ontario Superior Court recently decided a case regarding the validity of an employment contract where an employee had signed an agreement with his former employer but never executed a new agreement when the company was purchased by another business. The plaintiff argued that the employment contract only governed the previous employment relationship. The Court disagreed, finding that the terms of the employment contract still applied.
On Sunday, April 28, 2013, there was a demonstration outside the Just Us Coffee’s office in Grand Pré to support two former employees of an outlet in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who claim that the fair trade company fired them for attempting to organize their co-workers.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with dishonesty as cause for employee termination, the new CSA national OHS training standard and how ongoing tardiness and breach of trust justified termination for cause
Many H.R. Departments pride themselves on the skill with which they can interview prospective employees in order to assess their qualifications for the position being advertised, the fit of the employee with the organization, and the likelihood that the employee will stay with the organization for a reasonable period of time. What employers are often not cognizant of is the limitation imposed on this process by the provisions of various provincial and federal Human Rights statutes.
On January 15, 2013, Labour and Advanced Education Minister Marilyn More announced an advisory panel that will gather information about increasing the number of employers and graduates in the apprenticeship program.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal termination due to theft, The Canada Arbitration Board decision about fraudulent medical notes, and a termination substituted with a suspension.
Perhaps because of the increased press directed to union conflicts, or perhaps due solely to a misunderstanding of the employment relationship, many HR professionals perceive that they have the right to suspend an employee based on some perceived or actual misconduct by that employee. However, while most union contracts do provide the right of suspension to the employer, there is no similar right available at common law.
A recent decision rendered by an Ontario Arbitrator raises questions about the hard line that seemed to have been taken by adjudicators as a result of An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters (formerly Bill 168), which amended the Occupational Health & Safety Act in order to address workplace violence and harassment.
British Columbia Court of Appeal concludes employee’s conduct in workplace interpersonal conflict justified just cause for termination
Workplace personality conflicts are becoming all too common in the Canadian workplace given the heightened sensitivity to workplace harassment. With growing frequency, employees are raising concerns about how they are treated by senior management. However, what happens if an employee crosses the line between a legitimate concern to undermining the very essence of the employment relationship?
Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Honda v. Keays, dismissed employees have increasingly sought bad faith damages in severance negotiations and wrongful dismissal actions. A key issue in these claims is whether the employer’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to justify these damages. The courts are clear that not every perceived offence or instance of misconduct will give rise to a finding of bad faith.
Earlier this year, the Nova Scotia Labour Board ruled on an application by Local 849 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees for certification of some technical workers of Egg Studios. Egg Studios is a television commercial and digital content business. It has applied to Nova Scotia Supreme Court for a judicial review of the decision. A hearing on Egg’s application is not expected to take place until March 6-7, 2013, according to court documents. Egg Studios maintains the labour board erred in law by amending the…
Two recent cases have confirmed a long-standing principle: in order to be effective, notice of dismissal must be clear, specific and unequivocal. Among other things, a definite terminate date must be specified. Otherwise, in most cases, the “notice” will not be effective, and the employer will be on the hook for additional notice or pay in lieu thereof.
The three most popular HRinfodesk articles this week deal with two cases of just cause for termination, and a case where an employee should have been paid for time training.