Canadian Employment Law Today

October 25, 2017

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 0 of 7

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian October 25, 2017 Harassment complaint not reason for dismissal Firing came soon after complaint, but probationary employee's continued refusal to follow directions made her unsuitable for employment AN ONTARIO hospital worker was fi red because of her refusal to follow directions during her short time there, rather than a harassment complaint she made, the On- tario Labour Relations Board has ruled. Jennifer Umlauf was a performance evalu- ation specialist for Scarborough Rouge Hos- pital in Scarborough, Ont. She was hired on April 3, 2017, with a three-month probation- ary period. Her employment off er stated that during the probationary period, the hospital would evaluate her performance and suit- ability for the position before making her employment permanent. Umlauf 's job duties included supporting the hospital's analytical and informational needs and using SAS, a statistical program. Her manager asked her to provide some training on SAS to her co-workers, since Umlauf had expertise in using it. Umlauf provided SAS training in one 10-minute session shortly after she started at the hospital and again in a session of less than one hour in May. Umlauf 's manager also asked her to work with a colleague to deal with an issue related to SAS. On May 23, Umlauf asked her manager to revise her job description to refl ect the SAS training and support to co-workers, some- thing she didn't think was originally part of the job and considered "additional work." One week later, the colleague with whom Umlauf had been assigned to address the SAS issue complained to the manager that Umlauf wouldn't work with her because she didn't consider it part of her job. Umlauf 's manager discussed the matter Golf course superintendent fi nds the rough after harassing worker Superintendent's treatment of subordinate worker worsened after she refused his romantic advances BY JEFFREY R. SMITH UNREQUITED LOVE is a diffi cult thing to face, but one Alberta golf course super- intendent chose a bad path when he con- tinued to harass a subordinate employee after she rejected his advances. As a result, his employer was justifi ed in fi ring him, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has ruled. Ralph Watkins, 67, was the golf course su- perintendent for Willow Park Golf Course in Calgary. He was hired in January 1999 with a staff of about seven full-time and 30 seasonal workers reporting to him. In the spring of 2011, Watkins developed romantic feelings for a full-time employee who reported to him, Andrea Li. Li had been hired in 2005 as a seasonal employee and became a year-round, full-time employee in 2007. ey took trips together with his grandchildren and Li's young daughter, and Watkins invited Li on a trip to Winni- CREDIT: SUNDAY HILL/SHUTTERSTOCK Workplace offences of the olfactory senses pg. 3 Poor employee hygiene can present workplace risks, but a tricky subject for employers to broach Employee addictions and undue hardship pg. 4 Employer discovers that the duty to accommodate an employee's addiction doesn't end with the fi rst relapse with Colin Gibson BOSS on page 6 » WORKER on page 7 » ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Refusal to take post-incident drug test

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - October 25, 2017