Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER May 15, 2017 10 NEWS 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 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 $72 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. HR Manager's Guide to Employment Files and Information Howard A. Levitt, B.A., LL.B., and Tanya Neitzert, B.A., CHRP Brought to you by: © 2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 00228VC-A49657-E98871 "All of this mounting regula- tory activity could even be seen as a clarion call for greater pay fairness." Organizations are facing pres- sure from employees to be more transparent about compensation, she said, "and, for some, this focus on legislation could provide some impetus for them to get their house in order and clamp down on pay decisions that could be leading to systemic bias." Privacy concerns While there is a role for regula- tors to play in protecting workers from discrimination, laws forcing private sector companies to share information on individual salary totals remain unlikely, said Kapel. ough the highest public sector compensation in Ontario is re- vealed annually via the Sunshine List, these kinds of actions remain rare. "We certainly wouldn't expect to see that level of disclosure be- ing mandated by the government over to the private sector," she said. The further companies drill down into revealing individual employee compensation, the more problematic it becomes with privacy concerns and the potential for employee backlash and poor morale, said Kapel. "e closer you get to sharing in- dividual pay, the juice isn't going to be worth the squeeze as a practice because it's probably going to cre- ate more problems than it's worth." For companies where pay equi- ty is already a corporate initiative, periodic reviews are critical to test for potential issues, she said. "Most legislation isn't saying that you have to pay everybody the same, but you have to demon- strate that you're not discriminat- ing against people or having sys- temic barriers. ings like time on the job and performance can legitimately create differences in how individuals are paid. at's why looking at pay in isolation isn't necessarily helpful." Engagement matters Employers are pursuing salary transparency for a variety of reasons, and pay discrimination may not be the main driver, said Jérôme Côté, compensation expert at Normandin Beaudry in Montreal. "It's more about employee en- gagement," he said. "If employees understand how compensation is established… they tend to be more favourable." Research has shown employees are more satisfied and engaged if they understand how their pay package is derived, while websites such as Glassdoor and Salary.com have pushed the conversation forward, said Côté. "Employees have way more information than they used to on compensation and what's being offered elsewhere, and it's not as taboo a subject as it used to be," he said. "As an employee, it would be nice to know your salary range and where you stand in your salary range, understanding how you're going to be judged and how your salary will evolve over time, based on performance or seniority." Further, pay discrimination is often more of an issue at smaller companies, said Côté. "is is probably where you would find the most potential for discrimination, just because they don't have the policies or practic- es in place to manage compensa- tion that equally." Broad solution needed e gender wage gap isn't going to be closed by government leg- islation alone, said Kapel. "It's rooted in a variety of fac- tors, including societal norms," she said. "Employers are going to have a part to play, but then so is every institution and individual that shapes how people view and value each other." But economic security for wom- en remains an issue that needs to be remedied, said Faraday. "Systemic discrimination im- poverishes women in a very deep way across this country," she said. "Our goal is to ensure that em- ployers are actually complying with their existing legal obliga- tions to ensure that women expe- rience that equality which they're entitled to." Pay no longer taboo subject ONTARIO < pg. 3 Worker fired for shooting threats Despite long service, denials hurt Toronto fare collector's credibility BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ARBITRATOR has upheld the dismissal of a Toronto transit worker who made comments to a co-worker about committing vio- lent acts. Mark Davis, 54, was a fare col- lector for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). He was hired in 1989. In early 2014, Davis was suspended for two days after ges- tured with his middle finger at a customer. e TTC also required Davis to attend sensitivity train- ing dealing with difficult custom- ers, the TTC's workplace violence policy, the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), and the need for appropriate and professional conduct at work. e day after the training, Davis was chatting with a co-worker at a ticket booth and said, "If anything ever happened, like losing my job, I'd have no problem coming in here and shooting them." Davis also said he would kill only man- agers, not employees, and men- tioned three managers by name. "I'd die for that cause," he said. The co-worker later told her union steward and a manager about the comments, and filled out an incident report. She also spoke to a transit enforcement officer and police officers after the TTC called them and, a couple of weeks later, filled out a supplementary report. On Aug. 7, the day after the conversation, the TTC relieved Davis of duty with pay while it in- vestigated. When he was told of the allegations, Davis said he was surprised and he was probably misunderstood because he joked a lot, emphasizing he had "no ani- mosity towards anyone." But the TTC felt the co-work- er's account was credible, since it was rare for a union member to make allegations against another union member, and she had no reason to make up the story. e police charged Davis crimi- nally with three counts of uttering death threats. He was suspended without pay on Sept. 25 and met with a senior manager to get his side of the story. However, be- cause of the ongoing criminal case against him, Davis said nothing on the advice of his lawyer. The TTC terminated Davis' employment for engaging in work- place violence, as defined by the OHSA. And the union — Amal- gamated Transit Union Local 113 (ATU) — grieved the dismissal. But arbitrator Lorne Slotnick agreed with the TTC's assessment of the co-worker's credibility. ere was no personal animosity between her and Davis, and she got advice from her union steward before reporting the comments, said Slotnick. Davis' credibility also suffered from his attempts to explain why his co-worker would lie, said Slot- nick, and Davis had good reason to lie to try to save his job. ough Davis had more than 25 years of service with the TTC, Slotnick determined dismissal was appropriate. Davis had pre- vious discipline related to simi- lar behaviour and the comments were particularly egregious since they came a day after Davis had attended sensitivity training. In addition, Slotnick put significant weight on the fact Davis denied everything and tried to shift the blame onto his co-worker. "Had Mr. Davis acknowledged his actions and apologized for them, he would have had a far stronger case for reinstatement," said Slotnick. "But with his failure to do so, other employees have no as- surance that if he returns, their workplace will be free of the kind of threats that those employees should not have to endure."

• Cover