Workplace harassment is a common employment law case
Daniel Lublin | Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 | 4 Comments »Here are five most frequent files appearing on my desk and in court dockets
1. Workplace Harassment
Following Canada’s first million dollar workplace harassment award, I can expect to see more of these claims walk through my door. That being said, most harassment claims are not credible as employees’ perceptions of their treatment are not dispositive of the issue. The test is whether an employee can demonstrate continued employment was objectively intolerable, which must be in the eyes of the trial judge, not just those of the litigants.
2. Unjust performance appraisals
Employees often declare a critical review is either a form of harassment or management’s concoction to force their resignation. For an unwarranted review to amount to a wrongful dismissal, an employer must have acted in bad faith and prevented the employee’s improvement.
Justice Randall Echlin, in his decision for Ata-Ayi v. Pepsi Bottling Group, noted negative reviews, per se, do not lead to dismissal. He wrote;
It is essential to any healthy and constructive employment relationship that the employer be able to discuss in an open and candid fashion with its employees, so long as such discussion is proffered in good faith. Sugar coating or minimizing legitimate concerns inhibits performance improvement and is work performance not conducive to a healthy and vital working relationship.
3. Calculating severance pay
Courts do not follow any defined rules in calculating how much severance to pay an employee and neither does an ex-employer. At trial, a judge’s task is to consider the circumstances however, four factors do prevail: tenure, age, re-employability, and type of job.
4. Employment contracts
Anything can be written into an employment contract, but not all promises can be enforced. In breaking a contract, most argue the contract provides less than the minimal employment standards, is vague, or the employee was denied the time or opportunity to have the contract reviewed, among other criteria. I elaborated on this premise in my recent column Employment Contracts Can Be Broken.
5. Off duty behavior
Employees who believe their conduct away from the office is immune from discipline are mistaken. Thanks to social networking websites such as Facebook, employers have the technological means- and occasionally the inclination- to monitor behavior away from the job.
Click here for the full article: Workplace harassment is a common employment law case
Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com
Related posts:
- Escorts in the workplace may lead to employment claims A canadian woman working as a top executive at a...
- US Supreme Court to hear “email privacy case” – could have implications in Canada The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
folliwing a workman’s compesnsation claim for psychological harassment i was forced by my employer to undergo a psychiatric expertise to be completed by their own expert witness.
Following my claim i underwent he expertise and a few days later was offered a settlement for my resignation by my employer. I waited two months for a follow0up nothing materialized.
Then i went on U.I.C. benfits and after the benefits expired my i was reintegrated.
While i was at work i learned that the motive for my absence in 2006 was a sick leave which was toatlly wrong.
In Âpril 2007 i hired a lawyer two represent in two administrative tribunals.
My employer was going to contest and invalidate my claims by having two expert wintesses testify on their behalf. Meanwhile my lawyer discouraged me from hiring a counter expert in my defense.
At the time of the hearings, it was noticed that a false medical diagnosis was being considered by the commissioner presiding the hearings. Obviously, not having a counter expert my family and friends who were present during hte hearings concluded that the medical findings made by the employer’s expert witnesses would be approved of unchallenged.
Since these hearings, i have been declared inapt and unfit to work in spite of the fact that this medical diagnosis is false, unfounded and ludicrous.
Since these hearings i have consistently condemned and denounced my employer’s unlawful actions and the defamator allegations of their experts.
In the course of defending myself and reclaiming my dignity on December 1st 2008
an incident was started by my manager.I was informed that i was being suspended and a few days later was told by my maneger that i was unfut to work.
Now i am on welfare and still very fit to work.
Do you have any suggestions as to how i can make this story without being sewed by my employer?
Sincerely yours
RAKEL ELBILIA
Hi Rakel,
Sorry to hear about your stressful situation. Thank you for your comment.
Up front, we must point out that we cannot provide legal advice over the internet or in this manner. We require any client to come in and meet for a formal consultation where our lawyers can discuss with you your legal rights, the law, remedies, and a strategy that ‘fits’ with your situation.
We do not provide a free consultation. Please contact us at the following information in order to discuss a meeting:
dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com
Whitten & Lublin LLP | Employment Lawyers
Tel: 416-640-1583
Fax: 416-644-5198
Mr. Lublin,
Is your firm willing to represent a former unionized employee?
Kevin Gauthier
Kevin,
Up front, we must point out that we cannot provide legal advice over the internet or in this manner. We require any client to come in and meet for a formal consultation where our lawyers can discuss with you your legal rights, the law, remedies, and a strategy that ‘fits’ with your situation.
We do not provide a free consultation. Please contact us at the following information in order to discuss a meeting:
dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com
Whitten & Lublin LLP | Employment Lawyers
Tel: 416-640-1583
Fax: 416-644-5198