Canadian Employment Law Today

April 25, 2018

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 April 25, 2018 Texting in sick on most days during absence suffi cient notifi cation Requirement for notifi cation before next shift doesn't mean daily report during extended absence, says arbitrator BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A MANITOBA employer had reason to be concerned over an employee with attendance issues but it couldn't use a few days of not calling in over an extended absence as reason to dismiss her when it knew she was ill, an arbitrator has ruled. Angela Campbell, 42, was a labourer at the Keystone Centre, a multi-purpose complex featuring an arena, show ring, exhibition spaces and meeting rooms in Brandon, Man. She was initially hired on a casual basis start- ing in November 2015 and became full-time a few weeks later. Her job involved cleaning and setting up for events at the centre, some- times in the day and sometimes in the eve- ning. She also sometimes worked weekends. After she was hired, Campbell's orienta- tion included the calling-in-sick procedure. Employees were instructed to call the engi- neering staff line if they were unable to come in for a shift. If someone called in sick, the en- gineering staff were supposed to make a note on a whiteboard that was regularly checked. In addition, the collective agreement had a provision stating that any employee absent Saskatchewan worker fi red after child porn conviction Off -duty conduct didn't hurt business or worker's ability to do job, but there was potential harm to company's reputation in community BY JEFFREY R. SMITH WHEN AN EMPLOYEE is convicted of a criminal charge related to off -duty behaviour, it doesn't always mean the employer can fi re that employee. However, when the employer's reputation is at stake, it can be a diff erent story — regardless of whether there is actual harm or only potential harm to the employer's reputation. Christopher Jacques was hired in 2004 by the Mosaic Company — a producer of fi n- ished phosphate products such as crop nu- trients, feed ingredients, potash, phospates, and industrial products located in Esterhazy, Sask. — to be a mine operator. He was disciplined at one point for damaging a bridge chair when it rolled underneath a hardware skid, for which he received a written warning and one-day suspension. He also had another instance with Tim Mitchell ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Promotion without change in pay pg. 2 No 'free pass' to forego mitigation opportunities to return to school pg. 3 Workers weren't trained on circumstances that led to collision Disabled worker fi red for insubordination, failure to co-operate pg. 4 Worker was on disability leave, but didn't help efforts to confi rm claim WORKER on page 7 » CREDIT: TOMASWORKS COMPANY on page 6 »

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - April 25, 2018