UPDATED: March 20, 2020 Last week we provided some practical recommendations to employers who are dealing with employees returning from travel in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this post, we will be taking a broader look at the…
At the end of the day, we know that everyone’s health is the number one priority, but we also want to make sure that people do not compromise their legal rights. We know that many of our clients are struggling. Whatever decisions they make, we want them to be informed decisions.
Imagine that you have a great benefits package with your employer. Suddenly, your employer announced that they are changing your benefits package; can your employer do this without notice or consideration?
While some off-duty conduct can justify discipline and even dismissal, the recent case of Hydro One Inc. and Power Workers’ Union Union (HO-T-3737) confirms that the threshold for summary dismissal is high, and that even driving a company car while off-duty and drunk may not be enough. The decision also confirmed the importance of considering all mitigating factors, including addiction.
If you are an employer or an employee, you have probably heard that the general rule of thumb when it comes to entitlement to notice upon termination is one month per year of service. Is that really true? What does the law have to say?
In the recent case of Unifor, Local 2215 and I.M.P. Group Ltd. (AB), Re, a Nova Scotia Arbitrator upheld the termination of an employee for cause and confirmed that progressive discipline is not “an invariable rule that must be followed in all cases regardless of the circumstances.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision confirming that courts will not be fooled by different corporate structures when an employee has, in reality, been employed with the same employer for years.
Losing a job is nerve-wrecking for most people. Employees must be careful, however, because they have a duty to mitigate their damages by taking reasonable steps to find comparable employment. Otherwise, their entitlement to damages for wrongful dismissal may be substantially reduced.
While being terminated from one’s employment can undoubtedly lead to emotional upset, the law does not recognize mental states that fall short of injury.
This case is another in a long list of cautionary tales where employers have been penalized for acting hastily and failing to conduct an investigation before dismissing an employee for alleged misconduct.