The Ontario Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed that the upper limit for reasonable notice remains 24 months, absent exceptional circumstances. This decision is a reminder of the importance of well-drafted employment contracts, particularly with regard to an employee's entitlements on termination.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court addressed an important question relating to the day-to-day activities of companies operating in Brazil: is the outsourcing of services allowed without restriction or should it be limited to non-core business activities, as set out by Precedent 331 of the Superior Labour Court? This decision is relevant because it will affect the standards adopted by the Brazilian labour courts in relation to outsourcing.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently published its recommendations for eliminating class-based bias in society. Its report points to a number of statistics demonstrating that working-class individuals suffer disadvantage in the employment sphere. As such, the TUC has proposed (among other things) the introduction of compulsory class pay gap reporting for all employers.
The Supreme Court recently held that an employer had been unjustified to summarily dismiss an employee with retroactive effect after discovering that he had covertly recorded a conversation with his manager. The court had to decide whether the employee's secret audio recording could be regarded as a material breach of the employment relationship and justify summary dismissal.
The Federal Court recently upheld an employee's dismissal, which had occurred after he criticised his law firm's clients in an opinion piece in two newspapers. While the court's decision is not a green light for employers to terminate employees who express political views, it is a reminder for employers and employees that a failure to follow a lawful and reasonable direction may justify termination of employment (depending on the circumstances of the case).
In the three-year saga over anticipated changes to the minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions under the Fair Labour Standards Act, the latest – and probably final – development occurred on 24 September 2019, when the US Department of Labour issued its new final rule updating the regulations in this regard. The new regulations will become effective on 1 January 2020. As such, employers must evaluate their workforces to identify positions that will need to be reclassified or modified.
As new information and communication technologies continue to be developed, employees are increasingly connected to their business phones or computers outside their working hours. As such, the line between employees' private and professional lives has become blurred. Within this context, the Luxembourg courts recently recognised, for the first time, the existence of employees' right to disconnect.
During the Trades Union Congress conference in early September 2019, the Labour Party announced plans for a new Workers' Protection Agency and Ministry for Employment Rights. In particular, Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn promised the biggest ever extension of employment rights in the United Kingdom, designed to put power in the hands of workers. Other Labour Party proposals include expanding 'worker' status to everybody except genuinely self-employed persons.
Ontario's Divisional Court recently found that a farm's employees were exempt from the overtime provisions of the Employment Standards Act 2000. The court's decision is now the leading authority on the farm exemption and provides critical clarity to the farming community, which often relies on overtime work to produce agricultural products. It also provides guidance on the interpretation of employment standards legislation.
Companies often use non-compete agreements to prevent highly skilled employees from using their know-how in favour of competitors following their termination. The Supreme Court recently addressed various questions relating to the compensation paid to employees for post-termination non-compete agreements. This article examines this topic in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidelines and a recent decision which led to debate among practitioners.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed an appellate court's decision and ruled that a school teacher who had moonlighted as a brothel manager had been eligible for termination because this sort of behaviour could be considered a breach of trust and damaging to the school's reputation. The case was eventually decided in view of the perceived criminality of sex workers and their employers among the general public. However, this perception arguably depends on who is asked.
A new law has incorporated the Modified Law of 19 December 2008's provisions on apprenticeship and internship contracts into the Labour Code and introduced certain clarifications and modifications. Among other things, the new law provides that apprenticeship contracts must provide for a non-renewable three-month trial period. In addition, apprentices can now benefit from settling-in and training leave in certain circumstances.
Assembly Bill (AB) 5 has finally been signed into law, making it more difficult for California businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. AB 5 codifies and expands the California Supreme Court's holding in Dynamex and applies the 'ABC' test to most independent contractor questions under California employment law. Now that it has been signed into law and its retroactive effect codified, employers must audit their independent contractor arrangements and pay close attention to the exemptions.
The Court of Appeal has held that holiday entitlement and pay for workers on permanent contracts should not be prorated to reflect the fact that they work on a part-year basis. In light of this decision, employers using set percentages to calculate holiday pay should consider auditing their workers on permanent contracts to ensure that these fixed rates do not result in them receiving less than their statutory entitlement.
The Board of Equal Treatment recently found that an amendment to a university lecturer's homeworking agreement and her subsequent termination did not conflict with the Anti-discrimination Act. The board held that there had been no indirect discrimination against the lecturer on the grounds of her national or ethnic origin, as it was her choice of residence rather than her ethnic or national origin that had given rise to the situation that led to her termination.
The Canada Elections Act provides that every employee who is an elector is entitled to three consecutive hours off work to vote. With election day looming, employers may be wondering what their obligations are towards their employees. This article sets out those obligations as well as employees' rights in this regard.
The Work-Based Learning and Apprenticeship Act provides a framework for the development of effective work placements, apprenticeships and internships. It outlines responsibilities and governance structures, while defining the rights and obligations for vocational education and training providers, sponsors and learners. Despite its introduction in March 2018, few employers and students are aware of this legislation.
The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation recently directed the provident fund authorities not to initiate inquiries into employers' previous wage structures on the assumption that certain allowances might not have been treated by employers as basic wages for the purposes of provident fund contributions. Such inquiries had been prompted by the Supreme Court's decision in Vivekananda, which clarified the legal position regarding allowances that fall within the definition of 'basic wages'.
The Supreme Court recently examined whether the dismissal of a disabled employee from a publicly funded, reduced-hours job when he reached the mandatory retirement age – and the public funding lapsed – violated the Anti-discrimination Act. The court found that the employer's receipt of a subsidy from the local authorities for the reduced-hours job had to be regarded as a clear condition of employment and that the basis of employment had thus lapsed when the wage subsidy ended.
In a recent case, the arbitrator found that the employer need not pay the agreed settlement funds because the grievor's tweets breached the settlement's confidentiality provisions. This case is an important reminder of the significance of confidentiality in the settlement of labour disputes and the need to include clear and unequivocal confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements.