Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER October 5, 2015 NEWS 17 HR Manager's Guide to Employment Files and Information Management: Legislation and Best Practices uniquely addresses the management of all types of employee information throughout the employment lifecycle, from recruitment to termination. Employment information and documentation management carries legal requirements that protect an organization from litigation, and are essential to the creation of sound policies for efficient, effective, and ethical business practices. Easy to read and understand, this new guide provides Human Resources professionals and others who deal with employee files, either electronically or in paper format, with: • Key legislation and emerging case law • Best practices in the areas of privacy, records retention, human resources information systems (HRIS), and information security • Practical guidance, tools and templates, such as sample policies • Information on all Canadian jurisdictions Know your legal obligations in managing employee files Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 Order # 986618-65203 $70 Softcover approx. 100 pages April 2015 978-0-7798-6618-2 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. 00228VC-A49657-E98872 New Publication HR Manager's Guide to Employment Files and Information Management: Legislation and Best Practices A Canadian HR Reporter Special Report Howard A. Levitt, B.A., LL.B., and Tanya Neitzert, B.A., CHRP Brought to you by: complaint, citing discrimination in employment on the basis of age and mental disability, then sued for wrongful dismissal. e court found the position of senior pastor "is of a special character" that "is a unique type of employment" requiring him to conduct himself in an exemplary manner at all times in leading and managing the church. How- ever, there was no expectation it could be long-term employment — as argued by Kong — because it was contemplated the employ- ment could end after 12 months, though after the suitability period ended, there could be a reasonable expectation of permanence, said the court. e court also noted that though Kong was older, age was often seen as an advantage for church leaders and he intended to serve as pastor as long as he was able. ough Kong was only em- ployed by the VCBC for less than two years, the length of the adjustment period showed the "potential difficulty associated with being found suitable and securing a similar senior pastor position," said the court, particu- larly since such a position was often filled by word of mouth or recruitment. As a result, the controversy around Kong and the hints he didn't do his job well negatively affected his chances for finding similar employment. Since the VCBC felt 12 months was necessary for an adjustment period — essentially a probation- ary period — the court found 12 months should also be an appro- priate period of notice of termi- nation. In addition, the VCBC circulated "unproven allegations attacking the social and spiritual worth of Rev. Kong to the VCBC membership" because he had disagreements with the associate pastors and contested the "ad hoc" committees the VCBC formed to evaluate his performance — which were not provided for in any of the VCBC's bylaws and guildelines. As a result, the VCBC was "un- duly insensitive" in the manner of his dismissal. e VCBC was ordered to pay Kong $54,520 — 12 months' pay in lieu of notice — plus $30,000 in aggravated damages for the man- ner of his dismissal. e court de- nied Kong's demand for punitive damages because "while VCBC's actions were unduly sensitive, they were not 'malicious and outrageous.'" For more information see: • Kong v. Vancouver Chinese Bap- tist Church, 2015 CarswellBC 2150 (B.C. S.C.). Jeffrey R. Smith is editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. For more information, visit www.employment- lawtoday.com. 'Unduly insensitive' CHURCH < pg. 5 complaints, a lot of allegations that they're making about mis- treatment on the job, people who are combative." Also, they may be feared by other people in the workplace. "Because tragedies don't hap- pen very often, we have a ten- dency to say, 'Well, that's just how Joe is — he's just having a bad day.' But if people are starting to com- plain about concerns about the individual, and they're becoming more and more socially isolated in the workplace, that's a red flag," said French. On a high level, employers should look for marked changes in a person's emotional state, said Peter Martin, Toronto-based CEO of AFIMAC Canada — or significant, negative changes in people's personal lives. "(at could be) some type of traumatic event that tells us that we need to have a higher level of concern for the person. And not from a suspicious standpoint, from a support standpoint. We really need to understand that the emotional health of our em- ployees is just as important as the physical health," he said. At the same time, an aware- ness of any risky personal issues is important. "If you look at some of the most high-profile issues that we've had in the workplace, sometimes they're not even initiated by the person, by the employee. So if you have someone perhaps in a very volatile relationship… where there is a high level of violence, if they were to terminate that relation- ship, that violence can carry over into the work life," said Martin. ose things need to be flagged, and addressed by a central group such as HR, said Hyde. "You can't assess and deal with a threat unless you identify it." Reluctance to report at brings up another critical point — the importance of report- ing behaviour of concern. "Very often, what you find in mass shootings is that the be- haviour of the individual that did it has been objectionable for some time, but no one brought it forward. Or maybe it was only brought forward in certain ways or discussed in back halls, but no one brought it forward formally," said Hyde. "We also have to train supervi- sors on how to deal with this. Very often, supervisors are in a position of authority but they haven't been told what to do if they get a com- plaint of harassment or threats in the workplace. (If ) they don't know what to do, they can bury it." Employees also really need to understand how important it is that they speak up, said Martin. "People always think, 'I don't want to tattle on somebody.' We're raised as children to mind our own business, to just focus on our- selves. And what we need to do is we need to establish a process by which we can report behaviours that are concerning without em- ployees feeling that they are shin- ing a light on individuals or cross- ing a boundary," he said. "e employee has to have a real reasonable confidence that the employer has a proper pro- cess for handling these types of inquiries or these types of situa- tions without the fear that the per- son who reports (could become) ostracized in the workplace by individuals." e next part of any reporting program is there has to be follow- up, said Martin. "If I, as an employee, have a concern about a fellow employee, I need to understand that my con- cern's not going to go into a black hole. "I need to know: Was this em- ployee confronted or not? Was my name used? Is my name go- ing to be used? Am I going to be expected to provide further infor- mation? And what is going to be delivered back to me to give me a reasonable sense of confidence that I was heard?" And follow-up doesn't end once the person walks out the door, said Martin. "e bigger question is… how to you properly detach an employ- ee from a place of employment so that place of employment does not become the focus of aggression?" People should voice concerns VIOLENT < pg. 9

• Cover