Employees don’t always get the bonus they deserve, but seldom will this amount to a successful lawsuit.

Veteran investment banker Kenneth Mathieson was well rewarded in his good years. In 2005, he earned a bonus of $1.1 million. However, when his employer, Scotia Capital, decided that he deserved only $360,000 in 2006 — the lowest bonus he had ever received — Mathieson believed the bank was attempting to force his resignation. He wasn’t about to go quietly.

To read the full article, visit Daniel Lublin’s columnist page at Metro News.

Daniel Lublin is an employment lawyer focusing on the law of dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

Another overtime class action lawsuit has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., alleging that BMO NBI has wrongfully misclassified certain of its employees as exempt from overtime pay resulting in widespread violations of the Employment Standards Act hours of work and overtime rules.  Stay tuned for more details.

By: Brian Norris

The recent and very public locker room gun-pulling incident between NBA players Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton has highlighted the importance for employers to create and enforce policy on workplace safety.

As many sports fans know, Arenas and Crittenton have now been suspended by the league for the remainder of the 2009-2010 season for brandishing guns in the Washington Wizard’s locker room. Some may interpret the NBA’s actions as “making an example” of the payers. Others, such as myself, see it as the league legitimizing and enforcing it’s policy outlined in the collective bargaining agreement; An agreement produced by the collective efforts of the NBA owners and the Players’ Union.

As previously mentioned by Daniel Lublin, if an employer wants to lean to it’s policies in support of a lawsuit, it is important for them to circulate and enforce clearly worded company policy.

With the introduction of Bill 168 in Canada, the issue of workplace safety regarding violence has been a hot topic as of late. The incident between Arenas and Crittenton and the manner in which the NBA dealt with it is a good example for all employers to take notice of.

Brian Norris is the Office Manger of Whitten & Lublin LLP, an employment law office providing counsel to both employers and employees.

Hair Salons battle over staff and client secrets – Reported in the National Post, Friday, June 19, 2009

There is a 6.4 million dollar lawsuit between Yorkville, Toronto, hair salons in a case that considers whether former employees have improperly taken trade secrets, such as hair-dye formulas and client lists. 

As reported in the national post, the oowner of Glo Salon and Spa in Yorkville is suing 8 former employees who now work for a rival salon, Gliss.  The lawsuit claims the employees, "ruined" her salon by poaching clients through using personal information related to their hair dyes, as well as, having taken their contact information when they left her salon. 

Typically, employees who leave for a competitor can solicit former employees and work for whom they please without any restrictions.  In doing so, they can use information that they have gained at their former employer, if that information is in the public domain or can be recalled by memory.  However, once the information is labeled as "confidential" it would no longer be acceptable to use it post-departure.  As well, if there is an employment contract, it must also be considered to determine whether the employee had agreed that they would not solicit clients or employees, make use of certain information or work for a competitor. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal release a landmark case in the area in H.L. Staebler which found that employment contract clauses drafted in a manner that overreaches beyond that which is reasonable will not be enforced.  Non solicitation clauses will more often be enforced than non compete clauses and restrictions between 6 to 12 months will generally be within the range that a court would accept as reasonable. 

Daniel Lublin is the Managing Partner of Whitten Lublin LLP, an boutique employment law firm, focusing on the law of dismissal.  www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com.

Last February U.S. Judge Robert Somma was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Clad in a women’s dress, stockings, and pumps, his arrest led to much media scrutiny. Two days after pleading no contest to the charges, Mr. Somma tendered his resignation to the court system, giving them 2 weeks notice.

Once his 2 week notice period was nearing it’s end, Mr. Somma started the wheels in motion to rescind his resignation.  His attempt to be reinstated was accompanied by over 200 lawyers who sent letters in support of Somma.  His notice period was extended another month, however, his quest for reinstatement ended on May 30th with the court issued press release stating that Somma is "leaving to pursue other endeavors".

Rescinding a resignation is possible in certain circumstances. In my September 2007 article, True resignation is voluntary, I noted that employees are sometimes free to withdraw a resignation and continue as before.  This would be subject to whether or not the employer had ‘accepted’ the resignation by its actions or conduct.  See the case of Andrew Kieran for more.   

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com