Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Lublin’

Daniel Lublin, Employment Lawyer, in National Post

Daniel Lublin | July 22nd, 2008 | Comments Off

Rogers beverage service provider Aramark, has taken an official position that they will not reinstate legendary beer vendor, Wayne McMahon.

Click here for video highlights from Wayne’s press conference yesterday, thanks to our friends at the Toronto Sun.

Or

Follow this link to the National Post’s article on Wayne’s story.

Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer practicing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or through his website www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com.

  • Share/Bookmark

Employers limiting limitations; Where’s the consideration?

Daniel Lublin | July 22nd, 2008 | No Comments »

American employers have begun to ask new employees to sign a waiver which effectively reduces the limitation period for employment law claims to 6 months after the loss.

Our friends at Law.com recently reported how DaimlerChrysler Corp. won a battle to enforce such an agreement. Mee Sanders was denied portions of her claim against her union and ex-employer because the Court ruled that Sanders waived her legal right to a 2 year limitation period when she applied for the position, thus reducing it to a 6 month limitation period.

The clause that Chrysler relied on, shown below, is brought to the attention of all applicants during the job application process.

In consideration of Chrysler’s review of my application, I agree that any claim or lawsuit arising out of my employment with, or my application for employment with Chrysler Corporation or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. While I understand that the statute of limitations for claims arising out of an employment action may be longer than six (6) months, I agree to be bound by the six (6) month period of limitations set forth herein and I WAIVE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.

In Canada the enforcement of a similar clause is doubtful.  Canadian courts will not enforce contractual clauses that provide employees with less than their statutory entitlement.  In other words, if the clause is viewed as illegal, it is void for public policy reasons. 

While Canadian employees can agree to limit their entitlements to less than they would receive had there been no clause in their contract, there are still various tests that must be met in order to enforce such a clause. 

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

  • Share/Bookmark

PRESS RELEASE FOR THE “ICE COLD BEER GUY”

Daniel Lublin | July 18th, 2008 | No Comments »

My office has now been advised by Mr. McMahon’s former employer that it has completed its investigation into the matter and that it is not prepared to reinstate Mr. McMahon as an employee.  We find this decision truly regrettable, especially considering the overwhelming support that Mr. McMahon has received from the public, Toronto Blue Jays fans and the media. 

We would like to thank everyone who joined together in solidarity to support Mr. McMahon.  Their efforts have not gone unnoticed.

Although it was not our preference, Mr. McMahon and I will now consider his legal options with a view to a wrongful dismissal claim. 

Please contact my office for further information concerning this matter.  Mr. McMahon will be available for interviews, at my office, on Monday July 21, 2008. 

To view or join the official Petition, please click here.

Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer practicing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or through his website www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

  • Share/Bookmark

Scotiabank becomes the newest class action defendant

Daniel Lublin | December 12th, 2007 | No Comments »

Scotiabank has become the latest big Canadian bank to defend a class action lawsuit.

A claim of $350 million against Scotiabank was announced in a press conference yesterday morning. It claims employees were routinely given more work that could be completed during regular work day hours and that they were required or permitted to work overtime to complete their work. This resulted in billable overtime work that, as the litigants claim, they were not compensated for.

This is the second such action against a major Canadian bank in the past year. It was in June of this year that CIBC was hit with a $600 million claim from employees who were not paid for overtime work.

In a news release issued yesterday by Scotiabank, the company stated "We are confident that the Bank’s employee policies have been applied fairly and consistently". Addressing the issue of unpaid overtime work, Scotiabank said that "the Bank’s policy is based on the Canada Labour Code".

If you’re an employee of a large bank which has yet to be named in a class action, don’t expect the gravy train to be stopping at your station today. There are numerous legal hurdles for plaintiffs claiming unpaid overtime. For more information on the law governing these claims, see my September 12, 2007 post: Workers should be paid for overtime.

It will take some time for both cases to traverse through the courts. I will routinely post items on this story as it develops so keep checking in. In the mean time, you can read more about the matter by visiting the following links:

The Globe & Mail – Scotiabank hit with overtime lawsuit

The Financial Post – Scotiabank latest hit in OT class action barrage

The Toronto Star – Scotiabank second to face suit over overtime.

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

  • Share/Bookmark
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
//