Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal

Change of Reporting Relationship Not a Constructive Dismissal, rules Divisional Court

The Ontario Divisional Court has ruled, on an appeal of a trial judge’s ruling, that an employee whose reporting relationship is changed, but whose job responsibilities are unaltered, is not constructively dismissed. Read Carnegie v. Liberty Health. This is an example of why executives need lawyers to draft their employment contracts. Contact me at 1-888-eWorklaw for more information.

[eWorkLaw.ca]

Dismissal: One Month Per Year of Service is So-So Rules Ontario Court

Lawyers used to trounce the one-month-per-year-of-service rule as dead in the water. The courts refused to be bound by such rigid formalism, they said. Enter scene Justice Day, who says in the case of a middle manager that the one-month per year of service guaranteed in his employment contract is all right. It could be higher, says the judge, but it’s not outside the range of normal.On top of that, the judge seems to happily rely upon the modest results generated by wrongful dismissal databases in order to fashion his judgement. You read it here first: Allen v. Bosley Real Estate Ltd.

[eWorkLaw.ca]

Humour: What's in a job description?

By MIKE HARDEN in today’s Globe and Mail Report on Business

If my recent and cursory reading of employment classified ads is any indication of the job market, the ideal North American worker today must be “a highly motivated, profit-focused, multitasking, self-starting team player with superior communications/interpersonal-relations skills, a BA, 3-5 years experience” and a willingness to start at $4.38 an hour.

Did I mention drug screenings?

I’d rather clean the bottom of a parrot’s cage with my tongue than be floundering in today’s job market.

Recently, the only ad to strike me as even remotely appealing was a local pitch for a “furniture repair technician” for La-Z-Boy. What could go wrong with a La-Z-Boy? It has a gearshift handle on the side for “way back,” “way, way back” and “deceased and ready for visitation.”

The job-benefits package promised “generous merchandise discounts,” which seems to suggest the possibility of furnishing an entire home with dime-on-the-dollar discontinued recliners. Maybe, maybe not. Given the euphemistic vernacular of job classifieds, it’s hard to know.

Employment ads are often written in a vague yet perky manner designed to make a 9-to-5 job replacing disinfectant cakes in urinals sound like a torrid affair with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

If I were to describe my job titles — dating from my youth — in the stilted, hazy euphemisms of 2003, I’d sound like someone you’d hire on the spot: [read on]

H.R. Law: Court offers guidance on handling disabled employees

Court offers guidance on handling disabled employees

The Ontario Superior Court condemned an employer’s approach to handling the possible disability of one of its employees. Offering an “either-or” proposition to to the employee, forcing her to either accept a job that paid half her usual rate or accept a lump sum to release all claims, constituted dismissal. The employer was left on the hook for disability payments. Read more.

[eWorkLaw.ca]