policies and procedures
On January 15, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg released its ruling in the cases of four Christian employees who argued that they suffered from discrimination and that their employers encroached upon their right to religious freedom at work. . . .
Does your vacation policy require employees to take time off in consecutive weeks? What does the law say? The answer: it depends on the jurisdiction.
The recent loss of a Canadian government hard drive containing personal information of receivers of student loans and the ensuing class action lawsuit are a stark reminder of how easy it is to be exposed to the pitfalls of data security breaches. In this day and age, when company data is stored on small, mobile devices, all it takes is an absent-minded employee leaving their USB key or smarthpone on the subway.
Thinking of vacation? You’re not alone. Both Expedia and Mercer consultants recently published studies shedding light on employees’ views on vacation time.
I am frequently asked by employer clients to describe what type of conduct by an employee will be held by the courts to qualify as cause for dismissal. Employers are often frustrated by the answer they receive – that it seems that nothing less than stealing money from the company will suffice. In the case of long time employees without prior instances of misconduct, theft may still be insufficient. A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court has fortunately clarified the circumstances in which courts will find cause for dismissal as a result of dishonesty. What is striking about the decision is the reliance of the judge on a seemingly insignificant act committed by a nineteen year employee.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its much-awaited decision in R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53, on October 19. This criminal law case is notable for employers because it provides commentary on an employee’s right to privacy when using an employer-supplied laptop.
In the dog-eat-dog world of business, there’s a growing trend of workers bringing their pets to the office. Some companies already welcome man’s best friend (and cats too), while others have not yet realized that there are benefits of allowing employees to bring their furry friends to work.
In addition to safety concerns, employers have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dress that detracts from their corporate image or offends customers. The common law principle is that dress codes must be reasonable, balancing the legitimate business interests of employers with the employees’ right to self-expression.
Slaw: Four Christians arguing right to religious freedom at work before European Court of Human Rights
On Wednesday September 5, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg heard arguments from four workers challenging British judgments over the expressions of their religious faith in the workplace. Two are arguing for the right to wear a cross at work, while the others object to dealing with same sex couples.
We are very pleased to announce that Michele Glassford, Editor of Human Resources PolicyPro, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba & Saskatchewan, and Atlantic editions, published by First Reference Inc., will be sharing her expertise with our readers on First Reference Talks, covering issues surrounding HR policies and best practices, starting in September 2012.