Canadian HR Reporter - Sample Issue

CANADIAN HR REPORTER September 19, 2016 INSIGHT 35 Emulating the Star Trek mindset Flexibility in the workplace is fast becoming a workplace ideal for all generations When salary and other fi nancial benefi ts are removed from the equation, the con- cept of work-life balance is one of the most signifi cant factors an employer can off er millennials to ensure their commitment to an organization, according to Deloitte. "Millennials represent the new model for work," says Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, "combining flex- ibility with meaning, money and performance." Bersin believes this generation is not only ambitious and apt for fl exible work, they are also very comfortable with technology and aspire to work for organizations that actually care, operating with a higher purpose. But the keyword from Bersin is "represent." We should look to mil- lennials as the catalysts for organi- zation-wide work style changes. ey are representative of em- ployees across all generations, holders of a new workplace oper- ating mindset — one replete with openness, fl exibility, engagement and collaborative technologies. As a generation, millennials — sometimes referred to as gen Y — are shaking up the way compa- nies need to be functioning. At a minimum, the millennial mindset is forcing organizations to take a long, hard look at how they're ap- proaching the workplace itself. No longer is it acceptable for an employer to provide foosball tables, free lunch or other perqui- sites to keep employees satisfi ed. Everyone has been raised in a world where freedom of speech is a right, but so too the chance for "fl exibility in the work" is fast becoming a workplace ideal for all generations. Analogously, maybe we can view millennials as the fi rst gener- ation to openly behave as though they're on an episode of Star Trek. Members of the TV show — albeit fi ctitious — were always on, al- ways working, easily swaying be- tween their job and their time for play with no real barrier between the two. If Scottie needed to chat with Captain Kirk while the latter was gallivanting with some exotic alien on another planet, he simply rung Kirk up on his Jetsons-like mobile phone and the conversa- tion ensued. Scottie didn't care if Kirk was working or playing. ey conversed when it was necessary. This is akin to a millennial's mindset — work can happen at night or on a weekend, but life can happen at 2 p.m. on a Wednesday afternoon, too. With the continued expansion and improvement of collaborative technologies, this Star Trek mind- set is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the baby boomer and gen-X generations, too. e Internet, text messaging, social media and email have be- come fi xtures in the daily lives of organizations. Technology has enabled an "always on" mind- set, with an equally blurry line between when work starts and where it ends. "The millennial generation symbolizes much more than a new generation of worker; it also represents a new era of technol- ogy and way of working," says Eric Termuende, a millennial and founder of the Dryver Group, a gen Y consulting fi rm. ere is that word "represent" again. Bersin echoed similar com- ments: "Millennials represent val- ues we all aspire to, and they bring a fresh, unbiased perspective to what work should be like." Dan Schawbel, author of Pro- mote Yourself and Me 2.0, says the 44-hour workweek no longer exists. "Our personal and profes- sional lives have been converged through technology. All of these trends together have made fl ex- ibility the most prevalent topic in the workplace." He does not believe this is a millennial-only issue either. Work fl exibility has become the most desired employee benefi t across all generations, he says. But, sadly, only one-third of all companies in North America are off ering it. But Bersin believes the de- mands and expectations of mil- lennials are fast becoming the same expectations of everyone: "There are still millions of boomers who want predictabil- ity, they want to be valued, and they want to give back to their or- ganizations — often in a slightly reduced and fl exible way. ey don't want to be considered the 'old guys' but, on the other hand, they know that their job is now to train, develop and support young- er leaders." A different type of warning comes from Termuende: "Provid- ing a choice for employees is key to getting people to do their best work. Not all millennials like to work the same way. It's the same for gen X and baby boomers. Hav- ing an employer provide choice and support across all generations will help with work-life balance." Providing options for fl exible work and new ways in which the work can actually get done is criti- cal for today's organizations. It could be critical for any chance of future success. But beware of the headlines and look to the trend lines. is is not solely a millennial issue and therein lies the key takeaway. If your com- pany is operating as though it's still the 1980s — where everyone comes into a physical offi ce and pounds away at company objec- tives between the hours of nine to fi ve — it is likely going to miss out on creating a more engaged and in- novative organization. Why would employees want to work at your organization if it doesn't off er fl exibility? Retention issues are likely to pop up. Morale may become an issue as well. "Companies need to create a fl exible work culture instead of giv- ing preference to a single genera- tion of employees," says Schawbel. "Every individual, regardless of age, has a diff erent work preference and if companies embrace these diff er- ences, they will have a competitive advantage when it comes to re- cruiting and retention." More than one-third (37 per cent) of workers in 2015 indicat- ed they have worked from home at some point in their career, up from nine per cent in 1995, ac- cording to Gallup. is is a step in the right direction, but more can be done. Flexible work has become the opportunity for organizations to reinvent themselves — across all generations — once and for all. Off ering up such a scenario in your organization can aid many factors, not the least of which in- cludes retention, hiring attractive- ness and improved employee en- gagement. e question becomes "What is your organization doing about it?" Dan Pontefract is author of e Pur- pose Eff ect and Flat Army, and chief envisioner at TELUS. He can be reached at www.danpontefract.com or on Twitter @dpontefract. Dan Pontefract GUeST COMMeNTaRY When salary and other fi nancial benefi ts are removed from the equation, the con- cept of work-life balance is one of the most signifi cant factors an employer can off er millennials to ensure their commitment to an organization, according to Deloitte. Relocation and constructive dismissal How much is too much when asking an employee to move to another offi ce? Question: When an employer is asking an employee to move to another offi ce location, is there a risk of constructive dismissal? If so, what can the employer do to mitigate that risk in case a reloca- tion is required? Answer : There is risk of constructive dismissal anytime an employer imposes a substantial change to the essential terms and conditions of the contract of employment without the employee's consent. As a result, a required relocation may lead to a valid claim of constructive dismissal if found to be a fundamental breach. As with most things in employment law, this all depends on the circumstances of the particular case. e leading case on constructive dismissal continues to be Farber c. Royal Trust Co.,updated by the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Potter v. New Brunswick (Legal Aid Services Commission). Under Potter, a court's analysis for constructive dismissal due to a relocation will consist of two questions. First, does the employer's unilateral change breach an express or implied term of the contract? And second, if so, was it a substantial breach? According to Potter, "changes to the employee's compensation, work assignments or place of work that are both unilateral and substantial" could constitute constructive dismissal under this analysis. Whether a relocation will amount to constructive dismissal depends upon a number of factors and the outcome in any particular case may be diffi cult to predict. For example, in Marshall v. Newman, Oliver & McCarten Insurance Brokers Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a customer service representative of a small insurance brokerage was constructively dismissed when she was transferred to an offi ce in another town, twice as far from the employee's home. The court found that job location was an essential part of her contract of employment, and the employee had not been previously notifi ed of the potential relocation. In contrast, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that an employer's offer to relocate an employee two hours away from his current location was not a constructive dismissal of the employee in Brown v. Pronghorn Controls Ltd. In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that the employee had made it clear that he would transfer within the company to advance his career, as well as the employer's good faith and legitimate business reasons in proposing the transfer (the employer made several alternative off ers to the employee, all of which were refused). Other factors courts may consider include the relative positions at each place of employment, the terms of the employment contract, industry standards, geographic distance, and the eff ect on the employee's personal and family life. An express or implie d contractual term permitting the employer to make a relocation should, in most instances, prevent a claim for constructive dismissal. However, if relocation ha s not b e en pre viously discussed, an employer's good faith in restructuring its business operations is only one contextual factor and will not trump what may otherwise be considered a constructive dismissal. In these situations, an employer should provide as much notice as possible. In addition, covering relocation expenses and off ering travel allowances and flexible work arrangements will minimize potential detrimental eff ects of the relocation, and may help avoid a constructive dismissal claim. For more information see: •Farber c. Royal Trust Co, 1996 CarswellQue 1158 (S.C.C.). •Potter v. New Brunswick (Legal Aid Services Commission), 2015 CarswellNB 87 (S.C.C.). •Marshall v. Newman, Oliver & McCarten Insurance Brokers Ltd., 2004 CarswellOnt 160 (Ont. C.A.). •Brown v. Pronghorn Controls Ltd., 2011 CarswellAlta 1933 (Alta. C.A.). Brian Johnston is a partner at Stew- art McKelvey in Halifax. He can be reached at (902) 420-3374 or bjohn- ston@stewartmckelvey.com. Not all millennials — or baby boomers or gen x — like to work the same way. Covering relocation expenses and offering travel allowances and fl exible work will minimize potential detrimental effects of a relocation. Brian Johnston TOUgHeST HR QUeSTiON

• Cover