Conflicts between employees are inevitable and if left unresolved they can often create a negative work environment and affect productivity levels.

Luckily, there are steps that can be taken to prevent workplace violence. Daniel Lublin, has given some practical suggestions for employers in his recent Globe and Mail column, What to do when violence erupts in the workplace.

1. Perform a proper investigation.  In any case of serious misconduct or allegations of fraud, employers must be able to demonstrate exactly what occurred and show that all of the circumstances were considered.  In more serious cases, this could require a third-party investigation.
2. Consider all the facts.  If the conduct is out of character, there is probably a reason.  Find out what that reason is instead of learning about it in a lawsuit.
3. Have patience.  Most employers tend to see their cases through rose-coloured glasses and are quick to rush to judgment, especially where there is a preferred outcome.  This only makes it worse.  Once an employer hits its breaking point, the company should slow down its decision-making process to cover all the bases, rather than speed it up.  The legal onus is squarely on the employer to do so.

The whole article can be found and read in the Globe and Mail.  Both employers and employees can educate themselves on how to deal with workplace violence before it occurs by consulting with an employment expert.

Daniel Lublin in the Globe & Mail\’s Google video hangout

Daniel Lublin will be answering your questions in the Globe and Mail’s Google video chat online on Friday at noon. Please e-mail your questions in advance at careerquestion@globeandmail.com

Daniel Lublin was again asked for his opinion on the situation surrounding RBC and recent apology to its workers affected by the outsourcing. The Toronto Star published this story and Daniel’s interview on their front page. His quotes are summed up below:

For the affected RBC employees, the story has had a happy ending, said Daniel Lublin, a Toronto employment lawyer who had been contacted by some of them to review their termination notices.

“It’s a David and Goliath story. It proves sometimes the little guy can make a difference,” Lublin said.

The employees believe it took a public shaming to get action, he added.

“They felt the bank wasn’t going to do anything about their concerns until the story went public,” Lublin said in an interview. “Now they’re being treated like celebrities.”

While RBC’s apology is unlikely to change other employers’ use of outsourcing firms, Lublin said, it may make them more careful how they treat the affected employees.

With the recent news about foreign workers to replace RBC employees, Daniel Lublin, Toronto Employment Lawyer was asked by The Toronto Star for his opinion. The whole article can be read in the Star, including Mr. Lublin’s quote:

Despite a promise by RBC to identify positions for affected staff within the organization, employment lawyer Daniel Lublin, who has been approached by a couple of the affected employees, remains doubtful of the prospects.

“Most banks will say that they’ll attempt to find you a job internally. Very few people find comparable employment within the employer. Most of them are ultimately terminated,” he told the Star.

“The reality is the people I met with are older, extraordinarily long-term employees, only a few years away from retirement, who are unlikely to ever find re-employment in the Canadian marketplace.”

Becoming a first time parent it is not an easy decision, especially in a time when the unemployment rate is relatively high and there are many new candidates to choose from.  The decision is even harder if one is a long-term, full-time employee. Most new parents are faced with worries about keeping their position once their maternity/parental leave is over and whether they will find themselves among those other candidates looking for a new job.

Being on parental/ maternity leave will change or eliminate your salary, possibly leaving you in a situation where you’re not earning enough to cover your needs.  Some employees might qualify for Employment Insurance Benefits and some may be offered a top-up from their employer.

Being an employment expert, Daniel Lublin, Toronto Employment Lawyer has often been asked to clarify and explain issues related to maternity/parental leave.  He recently answered a reader’s question in his Globe and Mail column “Do I have to repay my maternity top-up if I’m let go?” regarding the top-up issue and whether that has to be repaid to the employer if the employee is terminated.

As Mr. Lublin has explained, employers are not required to pay any salary to an employee off on pregnancy or parental leave.  However, a top-up contract is an agreement to pay some of an employee’s salary, or to “top up” their income, while they are on pregnancy or parental leave by paying the difference between what employment insurance pays and the employee’s salary.  These contracts usually state that an employee is responsible for repaying that money only if he or she voluntarily leaves the company within a certain period of time after their leave ends.

This topic is without a doubt, one of the most misunderstood and contentious issues in employment law and finding the right answer when it comes to maternity/parental leave may not be easy.  Although a lot of information on Employment Insurance can be found on the government’s website, it is always best to consult with an employment lawyer who can guide you through the process and advise you of your options when it comes to maternity/parental leave.

Daniel Lublin appeared on CTV News on Friday, March 22, 2013 to comment on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in two high profile class action lawsuits regarding the issue of unpaid overtime.  In those cases, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision allowing these cases to go to trial.  The cases involve allegations of unpaid overtime for hundreds of non-managerial employees at Scotiabank and CIBC.  Although these specific cases involve federally-regulated employees, Mr. Lublin applauded the national press which has been dedicated to the growing problem of unpaid overtime, commenting that the attention they have garnered has resonated with both employers and employees across the country.  However, he stressed that despite this increased awareness, it is still all-to-common for employees to work overtime hours without being paid for it.  Mr. Lublin recommended that employees meticulously document the hours they work and inform their employers that they have a right to be paid for any overtime hours in accordance with the applicable legislation.

In Ontario, the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 governs the terms and conditions of employees who are provincially-regulated.  This legislation requires that eligible employees be paid for all working time over and above 44 hours in a work week, which must be paid at 1.5 times their regular wages.  It carves out exceptions for managerial employees and various professionals exempt from the mandatory payment of overtime.  As one might expect, the Act also prohibits employers from penalizing employees who seek to enforce their right to collect overtime pay.  Federally-regulated employees – like those who work in the banking industry – are subject to the overtime provisions of the Canada Labour Code, which requires the payment of overtime after eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a work week.

Being laid off does not make it any easier for an employee to realize what his/her rights are or what next steps should be taken.  Many employees believe severance packages are not negotiable and that after their dismissal they are entitled to only what the employer offers.  This amount is usually no more than their statutory right to severance, found in employment standards legislation; so they sign whatever they are given.

Should you really just sign whatever has been offered?

Often, employers offer what they believe employees will accept, not what they are actually entitled to because they know that statistically most employees will simply accept, happy to get anything at all.  So, it is always wise to ask for more!

Then again, can the employer then change their mind about their offer and refuse to pay, when an employee asks for more?  Toronto Employment Lawyer, Daniel Lublin has recently answered a similar question in his Globe and Mail article Can my ex-employer refuse to pay severance?

He says, if your employer is not playing by the rules it makes your case against them even stronger.

Mr. Lublin explains that when you are laid off without cause, employment standards legislation states that you are automatically entitled to a statutory severance payment based on your tenure.  This is not something that can be taken away and it is not negotiable either.  Even if negotiations are cut off, these payments must still be made and they must be made immediately following your termination.

When it comes to long serving employees, the statutory amounts should never be overlooked and employers are required to provide a more generous severance package than what is required by employment standards legislation.

Courts usually have sympathy when it comes to long term employees, especially if the employer is not playing by the rules.  In any case, the only way you might end up with nothing at all is if you let your ex-employer take advantage of you.

If you have been terminated and want to know if your offer is fair, the best decision you can make is to contact an employment lawyer who can explain and guide you through your negotiation process, making sure that your entitlements are maximized.

Do you think your job is safe while you are on maternity or parental leave and will your severance be enough to support you in the future? Think again!

Overwhelmed by new parenthood duties and the possibility of losing their job, it may be harder than you think to find all the necessary information and to know your rights in the event that it happens to you.

The best approach is to consult with an expert who can discuss your options in case a termination happens while on maternity or parental leave. Toronto Employment Lawyer, Daniel Lublin answered a similar question in his latest article published in the Globe & Mail, Is it legal to lay off a worker on maternity leave?

Is termination legal while on maternity leave? Termination while on leave is not strictly illegal. It is only illegal if your termination is related to or because you are on leave or because you will now have child-care requirements.

Employment standards legislation requires employers to reinstate employees at the end of their leave to the job they held or to a comparable job if their job no longer exists. However, if an employer can prove that a termination was unrelated to the leave of absence, such as where a division shuts down or a major client is lost, then reinstatement may not be required.

Is the termination package good enough? Termination while on leave or shortly after leave may justify more severance. Severance pay is based on how long it should take you to secure a comparable job. The courts consider your age, tenure, position and the availability of other work having regard to your personal circumstances. This last factor is much more subjective than the others, and employees returning from parental leave or who are terminated while on leave often argue that finding another job after being out of work is more difficult.

This topic is without a doubt, one of the most misunderstood and contentious issues in employment law. To learn more about your options, contact an employment lawyer who can explain and advise on which steps should be taken to your benefit.

Working from home can be quite confusing when it comes to contracts and one must clarify with his/her employer before any actions are to be taken.  This is especially important if one decides to relocate their residence.  With the wide spread of technology and easier telecommunication methods available all over the world, it is easy for employees to work from anywhere they like.  However, it is up to the employer to agree to that arrangement, regardless of whether the employer might be saving costs by not maintaining a space for the employee at work.

Remote workers may be out of sight, but they are not out of mind for employers.

Just recently Yahoo! Inc. decided on a significant change, recalling all of its employees with work-from-home arrangements to return to the office setting.  Although the employer has a right to determine how its business will be conducted, for employees who have been working from home for many years, mandating immediate change may not apply to them.

As Daniel Lublin, Toronto Employment Lawyer explained in his latest Globe and Mail article Work from Home? The same rules apply, if working remotely has become a key term of an employee’s job, then an employer must provide reasonable notice of its intention to recall the employee, or risk facing a constructive dismissal claim.  If a worker has the right to work from home, an employer cannot simply demand otherwise.

The employer has, on the other hand, the right to demand that working-from–home is not conducted from anywhere in the world; if one decides to relocate to a new city, country, etc.  In most cases the language of the contract would dictate the limits, but where there is no contract, it is possible that an employee working from home could work from anywhere, within reasonable limits.

Despite working remotely, and sometimes not coming into “work” at all, employees in these relationships are still workers under law.  All of the same rights and obligations that they would otherwise have should continue unless – and there is always an exception in workplace law – a contract says otherwise.

The whole article can be read in Daniel’s Globe and Mail column, and to find out more about which rules apply when working from home, it is always best to consult with an employment expert.