[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for WSIB – Indepedent Contractor #87060

To answer that, I need to know WHAT KIND of contractor you are, i.e., what kind of work you do. If it’s construction work, you probably do have to register but you may still qualify for an exemption. Carrying liability insurance is one of the requirements for WSIB registration and getting the necessary Clearance Certification. Of course, getting liability insurance isn’t just a legal imperative but a business one since if you don’t have insurance, nobody will hire you. But, again, it depends on the kind of contractor you are.
So, loop back with me and I’ll give you a follow-up response when I find out what you do. OK’ You can reach me directly at glennd@bongarde.com.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for EI Parental Benefits can a husband receive them if the wife is a stay at home parent?? #87059

Here’s the response from our payroll expert, Alan McEwen:
The answer is really dependent on the role the husband plays.
If he takes time off work to care for the child, the answer is yes.
It’s a question of fact whether that’s the situation or not.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for in Alberta if an employee offers a week or two notice within their first 90 days of employment, does the employer need to honor the notice or can they terminate the employee immediately? #87058

Confirmed. Alan says that my response is, in fact, correct (there’s a first time for everything) and that you CAN terminate immediately and decline the notice. Hope that helps. Have a great weekend. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for in Alberta if an employee offers a week or two notice within their first 90 days of employment, does the employer need to honor the notice or can they terminate the employee immediately? #87057

I’m pretty sure you can terminate them immediately. But I’m not the payroll expert. Alan McEwen is. So let me run this Q by him and let you know when I hear back. Unfortunately, that may not be until Monday. Thanks. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for When hiring/onboarding new employees we are looking at the potential to go to a web based platform that would lessen the face to face contact with the individuals we are hiring and are wondering what we can and can’t ask for through that process. A. Are we required to verify SIN and if so by what means, by seeing it in person or by the employee providing a copy? b. Are we required to confirm age and if so by what means, seeing a birth certificate and/or passport in person or by the employee providing a copy of documentation to support. If employees are able to provide documentation to support should we destroy once confirmed or can it be placed within the HR employee file. Thank you, #87056

Do I have your permission to forward this Q to my colleague, Alan McEwen, who’s more familiar with these processes than I am’ Glenn  glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Best practice in HR Records Management #87055

Start with HRI–there are 2 really good pieces that address the legal requirements for payroll record keeping
https://ohsinsider.com/what-payroll-records-does-the-law-require/
https://ohsinsider.com/payroll-recordkeeping-requirements-across-canada/
Other resources:
Ontario MOL ESA guidelines https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/record-keeping
Canadian Fed Govt. file:///C:/Users/glenn/Downloads/records_(2)%20(1).pdf
Good resources on electronic record keeping https://www.mtroyal.ca/rim/ElectronicRecords/index.htm
Hope this helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Modified Duties Requirement #87054

That’s a deceptively complex Q. Let me see if I can break it down.
Under human rights laws, you have a duty to accommodate the worker to the point of undue hardship. The Q of whether an accommodation, in this case not requiring her to use the machine and offering her suitable work she can do, depends on: A. The employee’s capabilities; and B. The unique circumstances of your workplace.
So, start by doing a medical assessment to determine what the employee can and can’t do. Consider whether modifications can be made that WOULD allow her to operate the machine. If that’s out of the question, you’re probably looking at modified work. Although not technically required because the injury isn’t work-related, it’s probably a good idea to follow the WorkSafeBC “suitable modified work” criteria in trying to come up with suitable work to offer as an accommodation, i.e., work that’s:
*Suited to the employee’s skills and abilities;
Meaningful and productive;
*Safe for her to do; and
*Within her current limitations.
If you have no such work, you don’t have to create a special job just for the worker (that would probably be deemed undue hardship). But you do have to be able to document that you did the assessment and a thorough inquiry and determined that there was no suitable modified work the employee could do in the likely event that she or the union file a legal complaint.
Hope that helps and please feel free to follow up with me directly. Glenn glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Substance testing in Violence and Harassment cases #87053

FWIW, I did some research myself and couldn’t find anything in the way of cases. If you do unearth something, can u let me know right away’ You can also reach me directly at glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Substance testing in Violence and Harassment cases #87052

With all due respect, I think this is a bad idea.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where an employer attempted to require drug testing for violence or harassment. And I’d be surprised if such a case even exists. After all, the employer’s duty is to encourage employees to come forward and support them when they do. Making an employee submit to testing after making an accusation has precisely the opposite impact and may be seen as a form of reprisal or retaliation. And think of the optics. “Oh, you say you  were sexually harassed. Would you mind taking a substance abuse test.”
And even if testing were warranted, the test results would yield little to no relevant information. Being impaired neither proves nor excuses acts of violence or harassment. And I can’t see any possible value of testing the accuser–other than to possibly impugn his/her account of the incident. But that’s a remote connection and certainly not one that justifies the imposition of testing.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where an employer attempted to require drug testing for violence or harassment, but I’ll keep my eyes open for one.
Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Stat Holiday Pay in Ontario #87051

Turns out my above answer is INCORRECT. Here’s what Alan says:
Sorry, Glenn, you’re wrong on this one.
The fact of the employee being on suspension has no bearing on this. The only question is whether he or she failed to work all of this or her last regularly scheduled day before the suspension.
The suspension days don’t themselves count, since the employee was obviously not scheduled to work those days.
However, the normal calculation rules apply. In other words, the employee’s earnings in the prior 4 weeks divided by 20, would presumably result in less than a full days pay, since I’m assuming the suspension was without pay
*****
Hope that helps and sorry for the misinformation. Alan knows payroll so much better than I do. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Stat Holiday Pay in Ontario #87050

I’m pretty sure the answer is NO, the employee wouldn’t be eligible for stat holiday pay for Family Day.
Explanation: Section 26(2) of the ESA says employees aren’t entitled to stat holiday pay if they fail, without reasonable cause, to work all of their last regularly scheduled day of work before the public holiday or all of their first regularly scheduled day of work after the public holiday. IMHO, failing to work because they’re on disciplinary suspension wouldn’t count as reasonable cause not to work.
But let me call in our payroll expert, Alan McEwen, who may something I don’t. Will relay Alan’s response when I get it. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Mandatory Benefits Enrollment #87049

Benefits aren’t my strong suit but I do know that employers must require employees to take EI and CPP benefits. And I don’t know of any law–in BC or any other part of Canada–that would ban employers from requiring employees to enroll in other benefits programs provided by the company. Theoretically, that may be an intrusion, especially if the employee is paying some or all of the premiums. But I can’t think of any law that mandatory enrollment would violate.
Hope that helps. And if any of the HRI users reading this knows of a law barring mandatory enrollment, please let me know. Glenn   glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Wage Rates – Students/Temporary Employees #87048

There are 2 parts of the Ontario ESA allowing for differential wage treatment for students in very limited situations:
1. Unpaid Internships: Sec. 3(5) says the ESA (including the requirement to pay employees at least minimum wage) doesn’t apply if the employee is:

• A secondary school student who performs work under a work experience program authorized by the school board that operates the school in which the student is enrolled.
• An individual who performs work under a program approved by a college of applied arts and technology or a university.
• An individual who performs work under a program that is approved by a private career college registered under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 and that meets such criteria as may be prescribed.

2. ESA Sec. 23.1(1) also establishes a special $13.15 per hour minimum wage that applies to students under age 18 employed during a school holiday whose weekly hours are 28 hours or less that’s in effect from Jan. 1, 2018 until the current Ontario minimum wage freeze ends on Oct. 1, 2020.
Other than that, though, I think students are entitled to the same wages as other temporary employees.
Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Working Out Notice Period #87047

OK, we’re cool, this is not legal counsel.

1. I don’t think that the employee’s duty to come to work would be in any way diminished because she’s working during the notice period. But our payroll god, Alan McEwen may know something I don’t, so I’m forwarding the Q to him.
2. The fact that you’re even asking this Q indicates that you recognize the dangers of Wallace damages, i.e., aggravated damages when a termination is not only wrongful but carried out in bad faith in a way that causes the employee to suffer mental distress. Bravo! You clearly are behaving with sensitivity, respect and concern for the employee’s dignity–and that’s more than half the battle as far as fending off Wallace damages is concerned.
3. The next Q is whether the strategy you’re proposing will actually work in helping the employee save face. If it were me, I’d definitely appreciate it if an employer offered to make the termination look voluntary to spare me embarrassment. I think most people would. But I just don’t know enough about THIS individual or the situation to judge whether it will work or backfire. That’s a personal judgment you and your colleagues will have to make.            Hope that helps and I’ll let u know when I hear back from Alan. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Employee is entitled to 2-week vacation but taking 4 weeks without approval and failing to return on the required date. #87046

It sounds like you need legal counsel. I’m not allowed or capable of giving you that. But I can give you my personal opinion as long as you recognize that I’m not your lawyer and I don’t know all the facts of the situation.
Going on an unapproved vacation may be just cause to terminate provided that you:

1. You have clear vacation policies and approval procedures
2. The employee is aware of those policies and procedures
3. You warn the employee that taking off for 4 weeks could be grounds for termination
4. You consistently enforce the policy with other employees who commit the same offence.

Based on your description, it sounds like you’ve checked off 3 of the 4 boxes–I don’t have enuf info to make a judgment on the clarity of your policies. But there’s a fly in the ointment, namely, the prior approval which may constitute a waiver of your right to discipline the employee for taking 4 weeks off. It’s crucial that you be able to document that you clearly notified the employee in 2015 that the approval was a one-time thing and not a waiver of your vacation rules going forward. Without written documentation, it becomes your word against hers.
Again, you should call a lawyer–especially if the employee is represented by a union. But at end of the day, I believe it all comes down to the waiver issue. Good luck and I hope this helps. Glenn

[Author]

Posts