[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for How long do we have to give the employees to sign a new company policy? Ie. 1 day, 2 days?? #86970

There’s no statutory or regulatory requirement that employers have employees sign a new company policy before it can take effect. To the extent such a rule exists, it would have to come from the contract or company policies themselves. In addition, if you’ve made it a practice to get employee sign-off to new policies in the past, you may be required to continue doing so in the future. These principles apply not just to the need to get sign-off but also the deadline for doing so. Hope this helps. Glenn.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for HR record keeping: How long do we need to keep employee record and how long do we keep recruitment records? #86969

ONTARIO: You must retain most payroll records for 3 years after employment ends. Exceptions:
* Leave records: 3 years after leave ends (ESA, Sec. 15(7))
* Extended work hour and averaging agreements: 3 years after agreement ends (Secs. 15(8) and (9), respectively)
* Vacation records: 5 years after record made (Sec. 15.1(5))
BC: You must retain payroll records for 2 years after employment ends (ESA, Sec. 28(2)(c))
QUEBEC: You must retain payroll records for a given year for a 3-year period (Reg. respecting a registration system or the keeping of a register (implementing LSA), Sec. 2)
Not really sure what you mean by “recruitment records” but if you clarify, I can check the retention period for them–assuming there actually is one
Hope that helps. Glenn. glennd@bongarde.com

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for General Holiday Pay Requirements #86968

Under Sec. 25(1) of the Manitoba Employment Standards Code, employees who work on a general holiday like Thanksgiving get BOTH pay for the hours worked at the time-and-a-half overtime rate AND holiday pay for the day.
Exception: Under Sec. 25(2), different rules apply if the employee works “in a continuously operating business, climate-controlled agricultural business, seasonal business, place of amusement, gasoline service station, hospital, hotel or restaurant, or in domestic service,” in which case the employer may, instead of paying overtime for hours worked and holiday pay for the day:
(a) Pay the employee for the hours worked on the general holiday as if it were not a general holiday; and
(b) Give the employee a day off, with holiday pay, on another day that would normally have been a workday for the employee:
(i) within 30 days after the general holiday, with at least two days’ notice of the day to be taken off, or
(ii) if the employee agrees, within any longer period but before the employee’s next annual vacation.
Hope that helps and have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Are Teachers considered a safety sensitive position? #86967

The definition of “safety-sensitive position” is one that requires a significant degree of care and safety to perform and can cause direct and immediate danger to an employee or another person’s safety if it’s done by somebody who’s impaired. Typical examples include airline pilots, bus drivers, operators of heavy equipment, workers in mines and other dangerous work environments, etc.
Teachers would NOT ordinarily be thought of as safety-sensitive but COULD BE CONSIDERED such in unusual cases where they are assigned special safety responsibilities–instead of simply teaching behind a desk, they’re driving a school van or assigned responsibility for students’ safety during a class trip in which students may be exposed to some kind of danger like maybe a prison, mine or other industrial workplace.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for What is the expected time limit before an employee’s absence can be considered job abandonment and be terminated? My research is giving a 3-5 day business day period, but I cannot find a standard in BC Employment Standards Act. What is the norm for this? #86966

The ESA laws DON’T specify a time after which an absence becomes an abandonment. In fact, they don’t discuss abandonment at all, not in BC nor in any other jurisdiction I’m aware of.
Abandonment is actually a so called “common law” rule that comes not from statute but court rulings in which one case serves as precedent for future cases. Although each case is different, 3 to 5 business days seems pretty early to be talking abandonment, which is usually measured in terms of weeks or months.
Also keep in mind that abandonment is based not just on length of absence but other factors including whether the employer takes “reasonable steps” to reach the employee and find out if he/she intends to return. If you can’t reach the employee, you need to keep trying on the general understanding that the more time that passes and the more attempts you make, the stronger your case for abandonment.
Last but not least, it’s also CRUCIAL that you maintain records documenting your attempts to contact the employee. Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for When requesting an employee to complete a physician’s statement, is the employer obligated to pay? #86965

Hmm. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “complete a physician’s statement”.
There are situations, especially under OHS laws, in which employers are required to pay for specific medical exams performed on employees, e.g., audiometric testing for workers exposed to hazardous sound levels. On the other hand, employers don’t have to pay for an employee’s going to the doctor after calling in sick.
So if you can give me some more details about your situation–what kind of physician statement and/or medical exam do you want and for what purpose, I should be able to give you a more specific answer. Glenn. Try me at glennd@bongarde.com if you want to contact me directly.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Turnover Rates in Construction Industry #86964

Turnover rates are high although I couldn’t find an exact figure. The sector added 300 new jobs in August and business is booming, especially in the Vancouver area where they’re rebuilding their subway system. Biggest problem for construction employers in BC, as in most other parts of country, is finding skilled workers. Estimated shortage in range of 20,000, which will keep growing in years ahead. Of course, that adds to turnover as employees in demand shop their services around. Here’s some stuff you can check for more info:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/statistics/employment-labour/labour-market-statistics
https://www.constructionforecasts.ca/sites/forecast/files/highlights/2018/2018_BC_Constr_Maint_Looking_Forward.pdf
2017 stats https://www.bccassn.com/media/bc-industry-stats-2017.pdf
https://www.bccassn.com/media/survey-bc-construction-industry-2016.pdf
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/shortage-of-construction-workers-critical-in-b-c-employers-say
Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Extending Probationary Period #86963

Sorry, it won’t work. You can’t “policy” your way out of providing minimum benefits provided under employment standards laws. Once employees put in the requisite amount of service, i.e., the probationary period ends, they become entitled to the notice, stat holiday and other ESA rights. Extending the probationary period would constitute stripping them of those rights, which you’re not allowed to do. What you can do is provide more generous benefits than the ESA minimums, but that’s not what you’re proposing–unless I’m missing something. Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Follow-Up: Public Holidays on Non-working Days in Manitoba #86962

Forgive me if you got a bunch of blanks. I’m having a hard time posting this for some reason. Here’s Alan’s response:
First, I was given to understand that the question related to Ontario.
But, for Manitoba, this person has it mostly correct, but not completely.
In Manitoba, the general rule is that a person is entitled to a day’s wages for a statutory holiday. So if a person normally works 3 days a week, at 8 hours a day, then the statutory holiday pay requirement is 8 hours. However, if either of the following is true, then the calculation is 5% of the regular, i.e. non-overtime hours in the prior 4 week period:
The hours of work vary from day to day; or
The wages paid vary from pay period to pay period.
This later condition would be true for employees who received incentive or exception pay, such as bonuses, commissions or piece work or where employees were paid a different hourly rates for different types of work.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Follow-Up: Public Holidays on Non-working Days in Manitoba #86961

Okay, I’ll pass along the follow up Q to Allan and get back to you as soon as I hear from him. Thx.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Can Employer Search Employee Lockers, Handbags, Personal Possessions? #86960

Employers are NOT allowed to conduct random or general searches of lockers, bags, etc. on general or unreasonable suspicion of drugs or alcohol.
But searches MAY BE OK if:
*The suspicion is substantial and reasonable, i.e., supported by specific evidence involving one or more specific individuals–“my employees are all a bunch of drunkards” won’t fly
*There are no less privacy intrusive ways to check your suspicion and searching is the only realistic method
*The actual search is carried out reasonably and no more broadly than necessary to confirm the suspicion, e.g., you can’t search everybody in the department because you suspect one employee who works there
*There’s a contractual basis for the search such as a term in the employment contract expressly reserving your right to conduct searches for drugs, alcohol, etc. for safety and security and indicating the employee’s acknowledgement of such right and that such a search, if it happens, wouldn’t go against his/her reasonable expectations of privacy
* You notify the employee of the search and its results as soon as possible after you conduct it
Hope that helps. Glenn

.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Managing employees with attendance issues #86959

I’m not qualified or allowed to give you legal counsel for dealing with a particular situation. But I can offer some general suggestions:
First, keep in mind that there’s a critical difference between nonculpable absence, e.g., due to illness or injury, which requires accommodation and culpable absence, e.g., playing hookey or missing work for no excusable reason, that’s subject to discipline. From what you describe, you’re dealing with nonculpable absence since the employee is ill and can provide a medical note documenting that fact. So, for now, at least, it looks like you need to stay the course–asking for doctor’s notes and being prepared to make accommodations for return.
Having said that, you do have some options. Legally, the duty to accommodate applies only to the point of undue hardship. To the extent you can show that dealing with all these absences is hurting your business in a substantial way, e.g., the employee performs a crucial job that can’t be easily replaced on short notice, you may be able to justify discipline or even termination. Another legal theory is that the absences are frustrating the employee’s contract.
But be very careful. As employer, you have the burden of proving undue hardship and/or frustration of contract and, believe me, that is really hard. So you absolutely need to talk to a lawyer before doing anything disciplinary. Another thing I’d suggest is implementing an attendance management program. There’s alot of good stuff on HRI you can use to put such an arrangement into place    https://ohsinsider.com/attendance-management-program-policy-nova-scotia-version/                   https://ohsinsider.com/managing-absenteeism-8-things-include-attendance-management-program/  Search “attendance management” on HRI to find other resources.
Hope that helps and remember, taking action against a person for nonculpable absence is very tricky stuff that you need to talk to a lawyer about. Hope the general stuff above is useful but it’s no substitute for counsel. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Medical Marijuana use under the Federal Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations in Canada, specific to BC #86958

In re-reading this, I think I might have totally missed the tenor of your Q. I thought you were asking about accommodating recreational pot but now I realize you were talking about medical pot. The legalization phrase threw me off. Would you like me to take another crack at the Q or are you okay with my response’ Glenn. glennd@bongarde.com, 203 354-4532

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for How to pay workers who stay only one day #86957

Yes. T4s are required in both cases.
What are termed the de minimis rules have two parts. A T4 is required if either of these conditions is met:

• The taxable income exceeds $500; or
• EI, CPP or income tax source deductions should have been taken.

Since EI is now on a first dollar basis, insurable earnings over roughly 60 cents (.01 / the current EI employee rate 0.0166) triggers the need for a T4 and hence putting a person on payroll.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Answer for Medical Marijuana use under the Federal Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations in Canada, specific to BC #86956

There is NO LEGAL DUTY to accommodate recreational marijuana the way there is with medical marijuana. More precisely, tolerating an employee or job applicant’s use of legal medical MJ to treat a disability is one of the things you may have to do to accommodate the disability. But use of recreational MJ is NOT protected by disability discrimination laws. Same logic explains why it’s okay to discipline for recreational drug use but not drug addictions.
And since the Oct. 17 legalization covers only recreational MJ (medical MJ is already legal), it should have no impact at all on your current accommodations policies. Hope that helps and have a great Labour Day weekend. Heading home now but will be around on Tuesday if you want to follow up. Glenn, glennd@bongarde.com

[Author]

Posts