|
|
by Rachel Ravary
McCarthy Tetrault
Last week’s decision in Hydro Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d’Hydro-Québec 2008 SCC 43 is good news for employers – finally there is a clear limit to your duty to accommodate employees who are chronically absent from work.
By Rachel Ravary and Philippe Lacoursière
McCarthy Tetrault
Earlier this year, we reported on the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Chiasson v. Kellogg Brown & Root (see the January 22, 2008, blog entry titled Ruling helps Alberta employers defend preemployment testing challenges), which upheld an employer’s right to perform mandatory preemployment alcohol and drug screening for safety-sensitive positions.
By Tina Giesbrecht and Lana Jackson
McCarthy Tetrault
Employers often ask whether they should give employment references to employees and former employees. This decision can be a difficult one with possible negative consequences for either course of action. Whatever decision is made, it’s important to consistently apply one policy regarding reference letters.
By Kate McNeill, Kelly McDermott, and Donovan Plomp
McCarthy Tetrault
On Friday, June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, reversing the largest award of punitive damages in a wrongful dismissal action in Canadian history. The decision is very favorable for employers.
Background
Kevin Keays was a long service Honda employee who was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome in 1997. He returned to work after a period on long-term disability benefits. Honda exempted him from its attendance-related progressive discipline policy but required him to provide a medical note for each absence, which was not required of employees suffering “mainstream” illnesses.
Keays’ sporadic absences continued, and Honda hired Dr. B to assess Keays. Keays hired a lawyer, who wanted to clarify the purpose of the meeting with Dr. B. Honda refused to deal with Keays’ lawyer and made Keays subject to its attendance-related discipline policy. When he continued to refuse to meet with Dr. B without Honda clarifying the purpose of the meeting, Honda terminated his employment for insubordination. read more…
by Barbara A. McIsaac, Helen Gray, and Daniel Pugen
McCarthy Tetrault
An employee’s expectation of privacy in the workplace is a big issue these days, especially with respect to the use of company computers.
|
|||||||
