Legal implications from 2014 workplace employment cases
Big employment cases from 2014 drew a good amount of attention to workplace law. Specifically, it demonstrated the legal implications to employees and employers. To date, we continue to see …
Big employment cases from 2014 drew a good amount of attention to workplace law. Specifically, it demonstrated the legal implications to employees and employers. To date, we continue to see …
Office romance can be a tricky business. Whether it’s because of human nature, bad timing or just bad luck, the legal fallout from dating at work is back in the news, making headlines as corporate executives and government officials continue to roll the dice, losing or leaving their jobs because of a workplace relationship gone awry.
But office romances between consenting colleagues are not illegal, and there are no statutes or laws against dating anyone at work. So why is there a profound fear of legal liability, and when do employers and the courts have a right to intervene?
Employees cannot escape liability because the actions giving rise to a complaint have occurred after working hours or away from the workplace. Even a tenuous connection to work is enough for an employer to intervene.
The workplace no longer has traditional borders. Employees now correspond through instant messages, through Facebook and via e-mail. Seldom do they do so exclusively for business purposes. Others, who are bored, unmotivated or underworked, surf the internet for much of their workdays, managing their sports pools, blogging about coworkers, reading the news or dating on-line. Employers have good reason for concern. Lost productivity and potential liability for the actions of their employees have caused most organizations to revisit their computer use policies – or create new ones altogether.
Canadian employers have historically taken an ignorant view of human rights tribunals and their often remarkable decisions. But that may be about to change. Because of sweeping changes to human rights legislation and left-leaning adjudicators directed to interpret remedial legislation, such as employment standards and human rights laws, in a broad and inclusive manner, employers should not be so unconcerned.
With positive performance reviews and regular salary increases, 14-year company veteran Gregory Backman had nowhere to go but up. But life can be lonely at the top. Having admitted to viewing pornography on his workplace computer, Backman was immediately fired. He wasn’t about to go easily. Supervising employees at the Saint John, New Brunswick premises of Maritime Paper Products Ltd., Backman had run into problems with Internet pornography before. He had been caught viewing inappropriate websites in 2002 and 2005. When a computer audit revealed that Backman had been surfing pornographic web sites for more than 10 hours in October 2006, Maritime Paper’s response was swift. Backman was shown the door.
When a guest of the party began flirting with Sutton, she reciprocated, and before long they were in the hot tub making out. Sounds like everyone had a pretty good time, right?
The day after the announcement of Hurd’s new role, HP filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction on the basis that Hurd could not perform his regular job duties without compromising HP’s trade secrets.
In an interesting case coming out of the New Zealand courts, a senior Pilot for Air Nelson, a subsidiary of Air New Zealand is pitted against a former flight attendant.
After a month of speculation, it appears that the salacious details of the supposed affair between Lisa Rundle, the former director of Rights and Contracts at Penguin Canada, and the former president of Penguin Canada, David Davidar, are destined to remain a mystery.