The New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently upheld a trial decision that by commencing an action for constructive dismissal, an employee had elected to terminate his employment relationship. In Potter v New Brunswick (Legal Aid Services Commission), 2013 NBCA 27, the appellant, Potter, appealed his dismissal of an action for constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeal found no reversible error and dismissed the appeal.
Whistleblowing occurs when employees reveal corporate wrongdoing, usually in their organization, to law enforcement. Unfortunately, it is common for whistleblowers to experience demotion, dismissal and otherwise negative treatment from their employers after they disclose the malfeasance or corruption.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with a reinstatement that was ruled an undue hardship for the employer, how a series of health and safety violations can be just cause for termination and how an employee on maternity leave was justly terminated due to a corporate downsizing.
Let’s be honest. As HR professionals, we’ve all probably seen our fair share of oddities in the workplace. From unusual employee excuses for missing work to other hilarious mishaps, some workplaces are anything but boring. Over the past couple of months, the news has been flooded with stories of ridiculous happenings within the workplace. Check out some of the craziest ones of the bunch:
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with differential treatment in the workplace, how an employee’s dishonesty and breach of confidentiality during a workplace investigation led to termination for cause and how a settlement was easily characterized as a retiring allowance.
Dismissals for cause can be one of the most interesting and challenging issues within the world of HR. While some companies have simply given up, I often say that “just cause is not a lost cause”.
The recent decision by an Ontario Small Claims Court (Cao v. SBLR LLP) , even though only at the small claims court level and unlikely to set any legal precedent, is nevertheless a reminder to employers and employees alike that we often tend to assume things about the law which are not true, only to be surprised by the facts when an aggrieved employee decides to challenge an employer’s action.
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
In the wake of the RBC’s temporary foreign worker debacle, and Prime Minister Harper’s temporary foreign worker program reform, what are the implications of outsourcing Canadian jobs in favour of temporary foreign workers? The implications for Canadian workers and recruitment are telling.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with whether a taxable benefit arises from the reimbursement of the cost of computer equipment, an update on the 2013 Federal Budget and how an employer was on the hook for damages due to a work reprisal.
An employee left work early for an emergency dental appointment without notifying her employer. Should the employee be terminated immediately?
A small-town bank manager who had an affair with a subordinate—including sex in the bank, during and after hours—should not have been dismissed for cause, according to the Federal Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, given the circumstances, it was not appropriate to reinstate the employee to his job.
Even in the absence of a release, employee who accepted a termination package not entitled to additional damages
If an employee negotiates a termination package with an employer but does not sign a release, can they successfully claim additional pay in lieu of notice in a court action? Interestingly, the Ontario Superior Court recently held that the answer for one employee in these circumstances was “no”.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with whether an employer had the right to terminate an employee’s employment without notice , how a government employee alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s decision permitting the use of telematic devices to monitor company vehicles.