Author: Alfred Kempf

The internet is a valuable tool in most workplaces. It is a vast, quick and free source of information. While the information gleaned from a search is likely not to yield a definitive answer, it almost always provides a direction to the answer.

At this time there are no municipal bylaws or workers’ compensation regulations preventing the use of electronic cigarettes in the workplace. Does this mean that employers need to allow their employees to use these devices?

Emotions can run high in any civil dispute. The parties in their anger will speak poorly of the other, they may treat each other with disdain or disrespect in the process. Feelings will inevitably be hurt and often psychological injury -- temporary or permanent - may result.

Employers encourage key employees, particularly sales employees, to use a wide variety of social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to connect with customers and prospective customers.

Professional firms encourage their members to publish articles on blogs (and websites like this) to promote knowledge and skill to their customers and prospective customers. All is well until there is a break in the relationship.

With the decline in general economic activity and increasing competition from low wage countries, what can employers do to lower their labour costs?

A human resources professional could help with issues concerning motivation and productivity.  An engineer or technician could help with respect to technology and modernization of processes and procedures.  This article will discuss the legal issues surrounding reduction of workforces or changes in the terms and conditions of employment.

Temporary Reduction of Workforce

One of the issues plaguing lawyers in giving advice to employees whose terms and conditions of employment have been altered is whether the employee should withdraw services and claim constructive dismissal or keep working while looking for new employment.

An employer tried to reduce its severance pay obligation by ceasing payments to a terminated employee when he found new employment. In the case (Allen v. Ainsworth in BC Supreme Court), the employer unilaterally gave working notice and removed the employee’s duties. In essence, the employee was being paid to stay away. When the employee found other employment during the notice period, the employer stopped paying his salary. The terminated employee sued and recovered the whole of the unpaid contracted severance. The Court of Appeal agreed with the result.

It is undeniable that employers must not discriminate against employees because of pregnancy parental leave. That being said, sometimes legitimate business reasons require an employer to reorganize their work force. In such circumstances, must an employer protect an employee who is pregnant or on parental leave when making decisions about how to downsize?

According to a recent Canada Labour Arbitration decision, the answer is a resounding “No” – where there is sufficient documentation and evidence to show that lay-off decisions were made in good faith.

In a recent decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal (Royal Bank of Canada v. Samson Management), the Court upheld guarantee language that was clearly designed to take away common-law protection for guarantors.  Under the common law, the guarantor might avoid his obligations where changes are made between the lender and borrower which affect the risk and exposure of the guarantor.