Posted by Johannes Schenk on September 25th, 2008 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law
I’m on fire?
Here is a Delaware WCB case, that discusses the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a case of horseplay related injury that occurred in the course of employment.
The horseplay causing the injury involved duct tape. The Court states:
In sum, the duct-taping prank in this case was executed quickly without a
significant abandonment by Appellees of their duties.
You guess the rest. The duct taping incident was in keeping with the general workplace atmosphere and was not out of the scope of these fellows’ regular employment.
Apparently these pranksters had also set a napping employee’s pants on fire.
No Comments »
Posted by Johannes Schenk on September 25th, 2008 — Posted in Employment Law, Labour Law
See this Globe article on the work of Dr. Vecchio. Ever on the giving or receiving end of envy and jealousy in the workplace? You know it’s a problem. You must understand this dynamic to get past these situations.
No Comments »
Posted by Johannes Schenk on September 23rd, 2008 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law
In case you had any doubt that stress is a physiologically based reaction that can lead to severe health problems, take a look at the work of Robert Sapolsky.
This kind of research may be the basis for some very interesting torts in the future.
No Comments »
Posted by Johannes Schenk on September 22nd, 2008 — Posted in Uncategorized
See the National Do Not Call List. The program is slated to start September 30, 2008, and the penalties are significant. Anyone cold calling or telemarketing take note and understand these new rules.
For the rest of us, hopefully, no more dinner time product flogging calls.
No Comments »
Posted by Admin on September 19th, 2008 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law, Professional Discipline
Take a look at, Montréal (City) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2008 SCC 48, for the latest position on criminal offence pardons and hiring suitability.
The case has a very extensive discussion on pardons and their effect on rejecting and hiring job candidates. The case is based on Quebec statutory provisions but the underlying principles are generally applicable.
It seems to say that you don’t get to consider the offence in light of the pardon, but depending on the nature of the offence and how it relates to the job there is a rebuttable presumption regarding candidate suitability.
In other words, if you reject a candidate with a pardoned criminal offence, you:
a) have some explaining to do; and,
b)you better have a good explanation.
No Comments »