• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • 24th Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📣
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

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

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Earl Altman

About Earl Altman

Earl Altman was a partner at Garfinkle, Biderman and now heads his own consulting firm. Earl has practiced commercial and employment litigation. Earl’s practice focuses on employment disputes, including acting for employees and employers in wrongful dismissal claims, and in breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

By Earl Altman | 3 Minutes Read April 22, 2014

Better the devil you know? employee’s obligation to accept an alternate position

Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2008 in a case Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, the courts have recognized the obligation of an employee, in certain circumstances, to accept an offer of alternate employment from their employer following dismissal. This has put many employees in the awkward position of determining whether or not the offer of employment is one that must be accepted based on the Evans’ reasoning. The difficulty faced by many employees’ counsel is the degree of difference in the position being offered, and whether such difference justifies the employee rejecting the offer of employment.

Article by Earl Altman / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / atmosphere of hostility, Bonus entitlement, breach of contract, change in compensation, comparable job, constructive dismissal, Dismissal, duty to mitigate, economic efficiency, embarrassment or humiliation, employee’s obligation to accept an alternate position, employee’s performance, employment law, Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, failure to mitigate, Farwell v. Citair Inc., HR Law, offer of employment, Purchasing Manager’s position, reasonable efforts to find a job, reporting requirements, salary and benefits, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, terminations, working conditions

By Earl Altman | 5 Minutes Read April 16, 2014

Contracting out of the Ontario Employment Standards Act

The Employment Standards Act in Ontario is legislation designed to protect the rights of all workers in the province. Under section 3, the Act specifies that it applied to any employee in the Province of Ontario, or any employee who is performing work outside of Ontario that is “…continuance of work performed in Ontario.” The Act contains numerous protections for Ontario employees, such as limiting the maximum hours of work in a week, providing an entitlement to overtime pay, and creating entitlements such as parental leave, vacation and personal leave. The Act also provides for the employee’s rights in the event of a termination of employment. Many employers have perceived these entitlements as onerous in some circumstances. In order to attempt to avoid such payments, or other obligations under the Act, employers have sought to have employees sign contracts containing provisions which purport to surrender the employee’s rights under the Act. This is generally referred to as “contracting out”.

Article by Earl Altman / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / common law notice, contract out of the Act, Dismissal, employment contract, employment contracts, employment law, employment standards act, Employment Standards Act entitlement, enforceability of such clauses, evidence of the parties’ intentions, notice entitlement, summary judgment, terminated without cause, termination, termination and severance pay, termination clauses, termination pay, Termination provisions, terminations, total compensation

By Earl Altman | 4 Minutes Read March 14, 2014

Picky, picky: How selective can a dismissed employee be in mitigation efforts?

When advising a wrongfully terminated employee as to her legal rights and obligations, I always point out that a wrongful dismissal claim is not like winning the lottery. While employers are obligated to provide reasonable notice of termination or payment in lieu of such notice, terminated employees must make “reasonable efforts” to find new employment. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. What must a dismissed employee do to meet her obligation to mitigate? What have courts determined to be reasonable steps? What conduct has been held to be unreasonable? From whose perspective will reasonableness be judged–the employers or the employees?

Article by Earl Altman / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / British Columbia Court of Appeal, compensation, dismissed employee, duty to mitigate, employee failed to take reasonable steps to find a job, employee’s mitigation choices, employee’s mitigation efforts, employment law, failure to mitigate, mitigation efforts, payment in lieu, reasonable notice of termination, refusal to accept a job offer, termination, terminations, trade or profession, wrongfully terminated employee

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 20
  • 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