• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Alison J. Bird

By Alison J. Bird | 2 Minutes Read February 8, 2016

Beware of the one month per year of service “rule”, part 4

I have written several times about cases which significantly depart from the so-called one month per year of service rule. There continues to be a seemingly never-ending stream of cases which confirm the perils of assuming that an employer’s liability for reasonable notice of termination will be capped at one month per year of employment.

Article by Alison J. Bird / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / 'rule of thumb, employer’s liability for reasonable notice of termination, employment law, employment standards, notice period, one month per year of service rule, pay in lieu of notice, wrongful dismissal action

By Alison J. Bird | 3 Minutes Read January 11, 2016

Can’t afford to keep them, can’t afford to fire them: Poor finances do not reduce termination obligations

Employee salaries and benefits can be some of the greatest costs borne by a business. As a result, when a company faces financial hardship, they will often terminate positions to reduce their costs. However, many employers may not realize that the obligation to provide reasonable notice of termination could negate any short-term cost savings they hoped to realize.

Article by Alison J. Bird / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / 12 months’ notice of terminatio, Bardal Factors, Employee salaries and benefits, employment contract, employment law, enforceable termination clause, financial hardship, reasonable notice of termination, rule of thumb of one month of notice per year of service, termination notice

By Alison J. Bird | 2 Minutes Read December 7, 2015

Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing

The law of drug and alcohol testing in Canada is in a state of evolution. While the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., provided important guidance on the strict standard that employers must meet in order to subject employees to random testing, it raised many questions regarding how those principles would be applied to other forms of testing.

Article by Alison J. Bird / Employee Relations, Health and Safety, Human Rights / bona fide occupational requirement, drug and alcohol use, employment law, impaired at work, law of drug and alcohol testing, positive post-incident tests, pre-employment testing, random testing, Supreme Court of Canada

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy