Canadian Employment Law Today

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian www.employmentlawtoday.com May 10, 2017 Worker's request to negotiate severance package not a resignation AN ALBERTA COMPANY must pay an overseas employee almost $150,000 for accepting a resignation that wasn't really a resignation. Matthew Carroll, 45, was hired in 2008 by Purcee Canada, a small Calgary-based com- pany that supplies electrical, communica- tion, and mechanical products and services to the energy, mining, and oil and gas in- dustries. Carroll was appointed operations manager, which involved sales and business development and helping Purcee's day-to- day business. He didn't have a written em- ployment contract. In late 2009, Purcee learned of a business opportunity with a nickel mining project in Madagascar. Carroll travelled to Madagas- car to explore the opportunity and went back several times, eventually getting a fi ve-per- cent commission on gross profi t from sales in the region, though again a written agree- ment wasn't drawn up. By September 2010, Purcee's business with the project had increased and it asked Carroll to work full-time in Madagascar. Carroll agreed to move there with his wife and two-year-old daughter, but insisted they live on the island of Mauritius, which was several hours by plane from Madagascar but safer for his family. Purcee's business in Madagascar went well initially, and Carroll usually worked in Madagascar for weeks at a time, returning to Mauritius for a few days every few weeks. In May 2011, a consulting company ad- vised Purcee to incorporate in Mauritius and enter into an employment agreement with Carroll to make things easier for Carroll's occupancy permit. e consulting company drew up a generic employment contract that Purcee and Carroll signed without discus- sion and was for two years, stating Carroll's salary and fi ve-per-cent commission, plus living expenses for his family. By late 2012 the construction phase of the mining project was wrapping up, so Purcee's Dressing down discriminatory dress codes Sexualized and gender-based dress codes are off the menu in Ontario restaurants following Human Rights Commission's report BY NADIA ZAMAN THIS YEAR, on International Women's Day, the Ontario Human Rights Commis- sion (OHRC) released a new report, Not on the Menu: Inquiry report on sexual and gender-based dress codes in Ontario's res- taurants. is report outlines fi ndings from an inquiry into dress codes at various On- tario restaurants and commitments made by a number of Ontario restaurant chains to put an end to discriminatory dress codes for restaurant staff — particularly female and transgender workers — and create more inclusive workplaces. e OHRC also re- leased its Policy position on sexualized and gender-specifi c dress codes. e result: sexual harassment and gender- based dress codes are off the menu, and will no longer be tolerated. us, employers with discriminatory dress codes expose them- CREDIT: ANNA JURKOVSKA/SHUTTERSTOCK Worker's time theft and lying outweighs years of good service pg. 3 Several workers involved Holiday roads have different routes pg. 4 Ontario decisions prompt employers to provide additional time off to non-Christian workers to celebrate their religious holidays with Stuart Rudner EMPLOYERS on page 6 » EMPLOYEE on page 7 » ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Eliminating company credit cards for expenses

• Cover