employment standards

Subscribe to employment standards via RSS

The first half of 2016 has already brought significant developments in employment law in the United States, triggering changes that companies with operations in the US must implement and plan for now. From final Department of Labor regulations increasing the salary requirements for exempt employees, to the new federal trade secrets law that will require updates to confidentiality agreements, in-house counsel and HR professionals have to develop best practices and strategies to navigate and comply with several new initiatives today. How can you help “save the day” for your company?

Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar – How to Be Your Company’s Superhero: The Top US Employment Developments You Need to Know for 2016

Canadian businesses with operations in the United States should be aware of recent and significant changes to the overtime rules. Yesterday, the US Department of Labor (DOL) published the long-awaited amendments to the “white collar” exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees, as well as the provision governing highly-compensated employees.  The Final Rule significantly increases the minimum salary an employee must earn to qualify for a white collar exemption and for the highly compensated employee exemption under federal law.  The increased minimum salary must be implemented by December 1, 2016, which gives employers approximately 200 days to prepare for and comply with the Final Rule.
Continue Reading US Department of Labor Publishes Final Overtime Rules

A recent New York Times article about the workplace culture at Amazon has spurred increased debate about the value of so-called “purposeful Darwinism”, in which competitive pressures (both internal and external to the workplace) and grand ambitions foster a cut-throat and gruelling workplace environment that leaves employees struggling to keep up or out in the cold.

Being at the top of any field, some would argue, demands this type of attitude and requires employees and managers who settle for nothing less than the best. When a company operates in a fast-paced, high-stakes industry that rewards continual improvement, hyper-efficiency, precision, and immediate satisfaction, there may be very little room for either error or rest. In exchange for a few years of catering to extraordinary expectations, employees receive above-marker compensation, responsibility, and experience that they might not gain in a less exacting workplace. This assumes, of course, that employees have the option of moving up or moving on, which is often more true for white-collar employees than blue-collar ones.

On the other hand, some companies appear to have achieved remarkable growth while maintaining a positive space for employee engagement and encouraging a more even work/life balance – on the whole, even if not day-to-day. For these companies, corporate sustainability extends beyond ensuring a healthy profit margin and minimal carbon footprint. Rather, it also involves ensuring that key talent can be attracted, encouraged, and maintained and that the diversity of the workforce is harnessed and propelled into innovative ideas and approaches. This attitude towards employee relations may require sacrificing short-term gains for potentially long-term viability – a cost that some employers, particularly those with demanding shareholders, may be unwilling or unable to pay.
Continue Reading Workplace Tug-of-War: Balancing Employee Demands with Employer Expectations

Employment contracts can be frustrating, but they can also be frustrated.  The former is a simple fact of life, while the latter is a key principle of contract law.

“Frustration” occurs where an unanticipated event destroys the heart of the contract to the point where it can no longer be fulfilled. When a contract becomes frustrated, the parties are relieved of any obligation they were contractually bound to perform.  The legal concept, while simple in theory, has been difficult for employers to apply, particularly in the case of absences due to the critical illness or injury of an employee.

In the recent case of The Estate of Christian Drimba v Dick Engineering Inc., 2015 ONSC 2843 (“Drimba”), an Ontario court examined the concept of frustration in the case of the terminal illness of an employee who subsequently passed away.  The case provides guidance to employers about the factors a court or tribunal may look at when making such a determination.
Continue Reading A Frustrating Employment Contract: When Does it End in the Case of Terminal Illness?

It could be a blizzard, a hurricane or a torrential downpour. The fact of the matter is that Mother Nature can, and will, strike; and, no matter what form it comes in, severe weather imposes challenges upon businesses of all sizes. When faced with issues like slippery or flooded roads, it can be tough to balance the needs of a business with the safety of its employees.

We often get questions from employers who are staring into the face of the proverbial tornado and trying to understand their rights and obligations. This blog will address four of the most commonly asked questions.
Continue Reading Weather Permitting? Employer Rights When Faced With Severe Weather

Since 2007 there have been five significant overtime class action cases in Canada.  Two of these cases have been labelled “off-the-clock” cases — cases in which employees allege they were expected to work overtime without being paid for it.  Both off-the-clock class actions were eventually certified.  One of those cases has now settled.

The remaining three overtime class actions are “misclassification” cases in which employees allege that their employer misclassified them as exempt from statutory overtime entitlements.  Courts have been more reluctant to certify the misclassification cases because, in a majority of those cases, the proposed plaintiff class has not been sufficiently similar to justify a class action proceeding.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce confirms the prevailing view that employers are most vulnerable to issues that arise when their employees’ hours are not properly monitored, recorded, enforced or compensated.  Employers continue to be liable to individual employees for misclassifying them as “overtime exempt”, but it is less likely that such misclassifications will give rise to the added liability that is associated with a class action.
Continue Reading Ontario Court of Appeal Refuses to Certify Another “Misclassification” Overtime Class Action

On July 16, 2014, the Ontario Government introduced  Bill 18, Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014.  The Bill proposes changes that would (among other things) remove existing limits on unpaid wage claims, make temporary help agencies and their clients jointly liable for unpaid wages, and impose automatic adjustments to minimum wage based on the Consumer Price Index.
Continue Reading Six Changes to Ontario Employment Legislation Proposed

The Ontario Legislature has proposed changes (Bills 159 and 146) to the statutory obligations of both temporary help agencies (“Agencies”) and their clients (“Employers”).  These changes would increase protection for temporary employees, including an “agency cut maximum” and a cap on the percentage of temporary employees that can be used by an Employer.  In particular:

  • Agencies would be required to pay their temporary employees at least 80% of the amount they charge clients for services performed by a given temporary employee.
  • Employers would have to ensure that the total hours worked by temporary employees in a work week do not exceed 25% of the total hours worked by all employees.

Continue Reading Ontario Proposes Changes to Employment Standards for Temporary Help Agency Employees