Your legal rights when dealing with a recruitment agency

| July 28th, 2014 | No Comments »

Most often young graduates will list their names with a recruitment agency in hopes of finding employment opportunities faster than searching on their own. However, time goes by and after a period of unemployment, you decide to search on your own. You find that some employers refuse to hire you because the agency submitted your name first, without your permission. Since the employer is expected to pay a fee of your wages, this does not sit well with them and those opportunities are lost. What steps do you take to prevent this from happening in the future?

Daniel Lublin gave his opinion in the Globe and Mail article on this subject. What he explains is crucial to continuing your search efforts. Firstly, you need to terminate dealings with the agency immediately. Whether or not there is a signed contract, they do not have the legal right to continue to act on your behalf without your authorization or consent. Secondly, send a letter to the agency’s director confirming that your dealings with them are over and that they are not permitted to continue to use your name for future searches. If they are still reluctant to do so, advise them of your intent to consider your legal options. Their unethical practice may be halting your employment opportunities. If at any point you believe that an employer may be conflicted with this issue, clarify to them that you are not associated to any agency.

To find out more on the topic read the full article published in the Globe and Mail, “A recruiter is sabotaging my son’s job search”.

Privacy in the Workplace; Employer Collection of GPS Information from Cell Phones Issued to Employees

| December 3rd, 2013 | No Comments »

In this new digital age, concerns about privacy in the workplace are becoming increasingly important. Since privacy legislations in several Canadian jurisdictions are  similar, although not an Ontario decision, a decision from the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia may prove instructive.

The issue in Kone Inc. (Order P13-01) (2013 BCIPC 23 (CanLII)) involved the collection and use of Global Positioning System (“GPS”) information from employer-issued cellular phones to its elevator service maintenance employees. The employees in question generally worked alone and were dispersed across wide geographic areas.

The employees complained that the information collected was in contravention of BC’s Personal Information Protection Act.

Mechanics were to transmit to the phones information about when they were “on duty” and “off duty” as well as when they arrived or left client sites. The GPS information was only sent to the employer, Kone Inc., when the mechanic was “on duty”. The phone would be set “on duty” during the workday, save the times when the employee was on break.  The transmitted information would be downloaded to Kone Inc’s computer system.

Kone stated that the information collected was for workplace management purposes, and did not violate privacy laws.  The employees disagreed, stating that the information was “personal information” and argued that the employer should disable the system and use a reporting system similar to that used prior to the introduction of phones.

The IPC reviewed the complaint and found that the manner, amount and type of information collected was reasonable use of management rights.  To address employee concerns about privacy, although finding the employer had complied with and acted in a manner consistent with the Personal Information Protection Act, the Commissioner recommended that KONE “create a specific policy for the phones that comprehensively set out the purposes for which the GPS information may be collected, used or disclosed. . . which could provide existing (and new) employees with a single, clear and continuing source of notice of KONE’s purposes for the technology”

This decision demonstrates that employer decisions on “technological monitoring” are given reasonable interpretations so as to not interfere with business operations. No doubt the balancing test between employee privacy rights and employer rights to manage the workforce will continue to evolve as technology develops.

All situations are different, and the above is not to be taken in whole or in part as legal advice. If you have questions about your particular situation, feel free to contact the lawyers at Whitten & Lublin.

Shhhh! Confidentiality is Important. It costs to be a tattle-tale.

| November 5th, 2013 | No Comments »

When there’s been a settlement agreement between an employer and employee, there’s often a confidentiality clause inserted into the agreement.  Confidentiality clauses generally restrict the employer or employee from discussing the decision reached or terms agreed to by the parties in resolving their dispute. These are so because confidentiality is thought to be vital to resolving a dispute.

An arbitration case this summer (2013 CanLII 53696 (ON LA)) illustrated that these confidentiality clauses are taken seriously and if breached, can result in severe consequences for the breaching party.

Constable McRae, a police officer with the Barrie Police Services Board was represented by a union who entered into a settlement agreement with his employer. The agreement had a clear provision: ‘This agreement is strictly confidential and without prejudice or precedent to other Matters’.

Despite the language in this agreement, McRae posted the details of the settlement agreement on, of all places, the Employee Bulletin Board.

The Police Services Board, McRae’s employer, took issue with this highly visible posting and asked the arbitrator involved to issue a remedy. The arbitrator noted this as a deliberate breach of the confidentiality clause and ordered McRae to pay back the funds issued to him out of the settlement agreement.

This illustrates that confidentiality clauses must be taken seriously. It may cost (what you got through settlement) if you seek to be a blabber mouth.

All situations are different, and the above is not to be taken in whole or in part as legal advice. If you have questions about your particular situation, feel free to contact the lawyers at Whitten & Lublin.

It’s not How you Look on Paper, it’s How you Look in Person

| August 9th, 2013 | No Comments »

There are all sorts of dating websites out there that might shock you.  Ones that are exclusively for millionaires, ones where people will pay tuition in exchange for a relationship, and ones like beatifulpeople.com, where membership is exclusively limited to the “attractive”.

The process: choose your hottest photo, click upload, and before you know it a global community of beautiful people will have democratically decided by majority click of the mouse whether you’re Kobe beef, or chopped liver.

Why write about online dating on an employment law blog?  Recently, beautifulpeople.com introduced a recruitment section on their website that provides membership with exclusive access to job postings, and employers with exclusive access to a unique pool of candidates.

Your knee-jerk reaction may be to say:

  1. That’s not right
  2. That’s illegal, or
  3. That’s discriminatory

 You might be surprised at the answer…

 That’s not Right

Many employers hire based on physical attributes, and appearance.   Abercrombie and Fitch’s “Look Policy” has become infamous in the news for stipulating the appearances of employees in great detail (You can read more about it here).  Many companies recruiting for positions that interact face-to-face with clients will either intentionally or unintentionally favour more “attractive” candidates.  Whether or not these policies and practices are “right” is debatable, the reality is that they are pervasive.

That’s Illegal

The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based upon many things such as: ancestry, age, sex, religion, marital status, gender, etc.   How somebody looks, so long as it is not related to one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, is a legally acceptable reason to hire a person.  The same would apply for terminations, so long as proper notice or severance is provided.

That’s Discriminatory

One of the goals of HR professionals when recruiting is to tap into large, diverse talent pools, thereby maximizing the chances of filling the unique needs of the organization.  The act of recruiting based upon looks is not directly discriminatory, but it is preclusive.  For example, a manager who finds beards to be unattractive may unknowingly be turning away people who grow beards for faith-based reasons, such as Muslims, Jews, Amish, etc.  In a similar regard, the users of beautiful people.com might unintentionally exclude persons whose physical appearance is different because of a disability, or because someone is outside of the age demographic of the users.  These types of hypothetical situations are instances of systemic discrimination – broad based institutional policies or practices that perpetuate a disadvantage to a group.  In this regard, the exclusion of a group protected under human rights legislation, whether intentional or not could constitute discrimination.

HR managers employing an aesthetic recruitment strategy should be mindful of how such a decision might affect the reputation of their business.  Ultimately, the membership of beautifulpeople.com may democratically choose who is worthy of their websites privileges, but so too does the public democratically choose who is worthy of their business.

Is A Workplace Computer Private?

| January 29th, 2013 | No Comments »

Most businesses, and many employees, regularly use computers in the workplace. Often, employers assume that since they own the computer, they own all the information on it.  When it comes to information put on a workplace computer by an employee, however, the answer may not be so simple.  There were two significant decisions on computer privacy in 2012. Although neither case was an employment law decision, they both have important implications for computers in the workplace.

The first case is R. v. Cole. Mr. Cole was a high school teacher who used a laptop issued by the school board.  When a technician for the board ran a routine check, he found that there were photographs of a naked student on Mr. Cole’s computer. The board seized the computer and searched it, then called the police and gave them the laptop, as well as discs with Mr. Cole’s internet browsing history. A long legal battle ensued over whether the police should have obtained a search warrant for the computer. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Cole had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the computer and the police should have obtained a search warrant.

R. v. Cole was a criminal law case, and the Supreme Court in its decision said it would “leave for another day the finer points of an employer’s right to monitor computers issued to employees”. Nonetheless, the Court’s comments provide some important insights.  The Supreme Court looked closely at the workplace policies and practices at the board, which the Court said diminished Mr. Cole’s expectation of privacy, including:

  • the board’s computer policy was up-to-date, and asserted ownership of both the hardware and the information on the computer and network;
  • the board reminded the employees every year of the policy; and
  • the policy provided that email could be monitored and that “users should NOT  assume that files stored on network servers or hard drives of individual computers will be private.”

Even with all of these helpful factors, the Supreme Court still concluded that the police should have obtained a search warrant. But that wasn’t the school board’s problem. The Supreme Court did not have any issue with the board’s search of the computer. As the employer, the board was within its legal rights to review the contents of the computer’s drive.

In a criminal case, the available remedy for an unreasonable search is to throw out the evidence. That doesn’t normally happen in employment law cases. What is the consequence of an unreasonable search? There are a few possibilities. One possibility is a claim for constructive dismissal.  If the employer destroys the employee’s trust, the employee can quit and demand a severance package. The second possible remedy for an employee comes from another case last year.

The second important computer privacy case from 2012 was Tsige v. Jones. In this case, a bank employee, Winnie Tsige, snooped the bank records of Sandra Jones, one of the bank’s customers. Ms. Tsige was in a relationship with Ms. Jones’ former common law husband. She wanted to know if Ms. Jones’ ex-husband – now Ms. Tsige’s partner – was really paying child support to Ms. Jones like he said he was. So, she looked at Ms. Jones’ bank account 174 times over 4 years. When Ms. Jones found out, she was understandably upset. Although the bank suspended Ms. Tsige for a week, that didn’t do anything to help Ms. Jones. She sued for damages.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately decided to recognize a new cause of action for cases like this, called “intrusion upon seclusion”. The Court identified three required elements for this new claim: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be intentional (which includes recklessness); (2) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and (3) a reasonable person must regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. The Court specifically stated that no loss of money was necessary. The Court suggested that ordinarily damages would not exceed $20,000 in such cases, and it awarded Ms. Jones $10,000.

In the wake of R. v. Cole and Tsige v. Jones, employees – and recently terminated employees – have already begun to assert that employer searches of their workplace computers are an “intrusion upon seclusion”. How can an employer monitor and search the computers that it puts in the hands of its employees? The key is to manage expectations. Employers can minimize their employees’ expectation of privacy in their workplace computers by considering the follow

  • Adopt a proper computer use policy, outlining what employees are allowed to do and the monitoring and searching the employer may do;
  • Ensure the policy is signed by the employees and they are regularly reminded of it; and
  • Implement the policy and follow through so that the reality of how employees use their computers and how the employer monitors that use matches the policy.

The 2012 Year-End Employer Checklist

| December 18th, 2012 | No Comments »

As the year draws to a close, we would encourage you to take a few minutes to consider the following checklist to ensure that your company’s policies, procedures, and contracts reflect the substantive changes in Ontario’s employment laws in 2012:

1. Do your termination clauses refer to benefits?

Employers should revisit their employment contracts in light of a 2012 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision which rendered a termination clause unenforceable.  The contract in question determined how much notice an employee would receive in the event of a without cause termination, but it did not mention benefits.

Pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), an employee’s benefits must continue during the statutory notice period.

Because the contract did not expressly refer to benefits, the court determined it did not meet the minimum requirements of the ESA and was, therefore, unenforceable.  Instead, the employee got a 12-month common law notice period.[1]

To avoid this result, employers should review their employment contracts to ensure that they address the continuation of benefits during the statutory notice period.

2. Do your employment contracts refer to mitigation?

In general, an employer must give an employee reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu thereof, and, as part of the bargain, the employee must make efforts to reduce or “mitigate” those losses by securing alternative employment.

However, in 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard a case where an employee was entitled to 6 months’ notice in the event of a without cause termination.  The contract did not say that the employee had an obligation to try to find another job in the 6 month period (i.e. mitigate their damages).

As a result, the Court decided that the employee was entitled to 6 months’ pay with no obligation to try to find alternative employment.

The takeaway message for employers is clear – when employment or executive contracts dictate a fixed amount of notice, those contracts must contain a provision requiring the departing employee to secure alternative work.  If not, the employer will be responsible for paying the whole amount, and the employee will be on a paid vacation.[2]

3. Do you have a Pay Equity Plan? 

Ontario employers with more than 10 employees are required to have a Pay Equity Plan.  Additionally, employers must be able to substantiate that the company has established, and maintained, compensation practices providing for pay equity.  To comply with the Pay Equity Act, employers must identify job classes, determine the value of job classes based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, conduct comparisons for female job classes and adjust wages of underpaid female job classes.

Failure to do so leaves employers vulnerable to a complaint from both current and former employees.

4. Have you filed a Customer Service Accessibility Compliance Report with the Ministry of Community and Social Services? 

You should do so by December 31, 2012.  The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 applies to employers who provide goods or services either directly to the public, or to other Ontario organizations, and who have more than one employee.  Employers with fewer than 20 employees are required to create a plan and train staff on the plan.

Employers with 20 or more employees in Ontario are required to make a plan, train staff, keep records of the plan and training, and file a Customer Service Accessibility Compliance Report with the Ministry of Community and Social Services by December 31, 2012.  Failure to do so may result in monetary penalties, inspection and possible prosecution through the courts.

5. Does your Information Technology Policy prohibit personal use?

In light of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, employers may wish to re-visit their Information Technology policies.  The Supreme Court decision determined that an employee may reasonably expect privacy on work computers where personal use is permitted or expected.

As such, employers should revise policies to ensure that there is no ambiguity with respect to the purpose for which the technology is being assigned, the intended purposes of the technology, and uses which the employer deems inappropriate.  Then, once the policy has been revised and the employees reminded, employers must take steps to ensure compliance with the ‘no-personal-use’ policy.[3]

6. Have you posted Occupational Health & Safety Posters? 

The Ministry of Labour has created a poster explaining worker health and safety rights and responsibilities.  Employers must post the poster, as well as a copy of the legislation, in the workplace in English as well as in the language of the majority of workers.

Ministry of Labour inspectors expected compliance by October 1, 2012 so if you haven’t already done so, ensure these free posters are put up soon.

We know it’s a busy time of year, so if we can help, please do not hesitate to contact us.  We would be more than happy to review your individual needs, perform a year-end assessment, and help to ensure you are well prepared for 2013.



[1] Wright v. The Young and Rubicam Group of Companies (Wunderman), 2011 ONSC 4720.

[2] Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425.

[3] R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53.

Is your social media account really yours?

| November 13th, 2012 | No Comments »

In the fast paced social media era, it is becoming almost impossible to decide who owns the rights to employees’ personal media sites, their contacts and their posts.  Do employers need to change the structure of their contracts to outline social media issues and how to keep up with those changes?

As those and similar questions are becoming very common among employees and employers, Daniel Lublin was asked to express his opinion on this issue in the recently published article in Law Times.  According to Mr. Lublin, a good rule of thumb for employers and workers to follow is that if the individual employee created and maintained the account for personal use, then it belongs to them.

“If it was created for the employer and the employer’s time with their resources, then the employer can claim ownership.”

However, the grey area presents itself when existing social media accounts are brought into new jobs.  This is a particularly contentious issue for employees with important public profiles where more explicit employment contracts would help clear up any confusion.

“Most haven’t gotten around to drafting contracts that say what belongs to who,” says Lublin.

The whole article can be read in the Law Times titled Focus: Who owns employees’ social media accounts?

Is your boss spying on you at and off work?

| November 12th, 2012 | No Comments »

How much privacy can be expected at work wherein everyday we are using our employer’s computers and equipment?  Employers want to make sure that they are receiving their return on investments when collecting basic information about their employees pay, attendance or benefits, and they want to be able to ensure that work is being done efficiently and safely.  Though, it is normal to give up some privacy while working for someone else, how far can employer’s watchful eye go and do employers have right to spy on workers?

Toronto Employment Lawyer, Daniel Lublin explains in his latest Globe and Mail article that generally, it is not illegal in Canada to hire a private investigator to spy on an employee who says he or she is too sick to work.  Especially if it is found that the same employee is performing physical tasks that they say they cannot perform while at work.

Most often if there is a problem with theft or security, employers will install security cameras focused on a specific location; which is not illegal.  They have the right to monitor their staff in some situations, but only if this is done in good faith and where there is a reasonable belief that an offence is being committed.  However, if there is no good reason for a camera and it is being installed without employees’ knowledge, the best first step would be to consult with an employment lawyer to discuss the employer’s new policy and see what options one might have.

Employers often monitor employees’ workplace computers, their e-mails and their Internet usage to ensure the devices are not being misused.  New fingerprinting technology is enabling employers to use more sophisticated machines and scan employees’ fingerprints in order to monitor their absence during the work day.  Due to the absence of stronger privacy laws there is no easy way to prevent the employer from installing those machines.

As part of the hiring process, job candidates’ public online profiles are often reviewed by employers and recruiters.  Provided that hiring decisions are made on the basis of legitimate job qualifications that are thereby revealed and not on any human rights grounds, there is currently nothing illegal about this practice, although some may view it immoral.

But whether or not privacy is protected by law or contract, respecting privacy in the workplace makes good business sense.

Daniel Lublin’s article and some more information about privacy law can be found in his Globe and Mail column.

 

 

 

It is my “business”, what I do after work!

| May 29th, 2012 | No Comments »

Is it really that way, or maybe your employer thinks differently?  An article written in the Globe and Mail by Danile Lublin, Toronto Employment Lawyer, covers situations in which employees can be disciplined for what they do when away from work, and when employers believe that off-duty behavior poses a problem to their own interests.

  • Criminal behavior unrelated to the workplace but which creates negative publicity and brings company’s reputation into disrepute, can amount to cause for dismissal.
  • Employees who use BlackBerrys, iPhones or tablets distributed by their companies to engage in any form of inappropriate conduct away from work may have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of those devices.  Therefore, employers could, in some cases, conduct random searches of the devices and impose discipline based on what they find.
  • Personal blog postings or Tweets made on employees’ own time could possibly amount to cause for dismissal if its connection to the workplace was obvious and any member of the public could view it.
  • Pictures or postings on Facebook and YouTube are fair game for employers where indiscriminate content impacts, or potentially impacts, the company’s reputation, trade secrets or its competitive advantage.
  • When another employee’s safety is threatened as a result of what occurs away from work, employers may even have an obligation to intervene under health and safety laws.
  • In some cases, even an employee’s poor choice of friends could justify dismissal if found that the potential for harm was great enough.

What advice can employees glean from these examples?

  • Conduct that occurs away from the workplace is not immune from discipline simply because it occurs away from work, but how that conduct impacts or potentially impacts an employer’s legitimate business or social interests.
  • Where there is a policy in the workplace that permits employers to discipline or discharge employee for what occurs away from work, employers will be more likely to justify their decision to do so.
  • Where off-duty conduct has no relationship to what happens at work, employers have no right to get involved.

For more tips on what you can do after your work, read the full article here as well as some more on similar articles on our website.

 

Embellishing what’s on your resume? Think twice. It could get you fired.

| May 15th, 2012 | No Comments »

 

Studies reveal that resume falsification is a common event.  Statistics suggest that as many as 50 percent of all resumes contain some degree of distortion.  While it is natural to expect that some form of embellishment on resumes will occur, there is a big difference between accentuating your strengths and creating new ones altogether.  When it comes to full blown lying on your resume, the truth is that you can be fired.

That is what Yahoo and its current CEO Scott Thompson learned last week when it was widely reported that he did not earn the computer science degree that his resume claimed.

In an article written in the Metro, Daniel Lublin tells the story of “Doctor” Richard Clark who applied for a job as a consultant with Coopers & Lybrand where in his application for the job, he represented that he had a PhD in applied mathematics, which helped him land the job.  A few years later, Cooper learned that Clark did not hold this degree and fired him immediately; arguing he would have never been hired had the firm known the truth about his resume.  Clark sued but later lost; as both a trial judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that Clark could not benefit from his own wrongdoing.

Lying on your resume may leave you looking for a new job and there are some legal points that courts will consider.  One of the previous articles written by Daniel Lublin tells you more about this and you can read about it here.

The law implies that not every act of dishonesty can lead to termination.  Often, context can come before content and a mere error in judgment can be overlooked.  However, when it comes to a resume, it’s still best to stick to the truth.