UPDATED: March 20, 2020 UPDATED: April 6, 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…
Employees should be mindful of the policies in the workplace and ensure they are not engaging in acts that would violate such policies.
If you thought the termination clauses in your employment contracts were air-tight, think again. The unsettled field of employment law strikes again in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc.
It is a question we have received consistently from employers: will “severance pay” qualify as “eligible remuneration” for purposes of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (the “CEWS”)?
Can an employer offer a reduced severance package when they are in dire financial straits? What if it is the result of a global pandemic and its economic aftermath?
Employers often wonder, “what’s the worst that could happen?” The recent case of Acumen Law v Ojanen is a good demonstration.
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.
While some off-duty conduct can justify discipline and even dismissal, a recent case confirms that the threshold for summary dismissal is high.
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.”