Employers are Consumers: Learn how to Fight Back and Office Politics: the game everyone plays

By Franke James, author, Dear Office-Politics

When Ellen Roseman, author and consumer-advocate columnist for The Toronto Star, invited me to contribute to her new book, Fight Back, I was delighted. As you’ll read in my excerpted article below, Ellen was an instrumental pair of “eyes” in helping me fight back — and win!  FIGHT BACK 

I WAS FIGHTING A COMPANY over the faulty installation of a gas furnace and ductwork, which had caused major structural damage to our home. I wanted them to pay for repairs. The company had deep pockets and no fear of going to court. Its lawyer said in a surly email, “Go ahead. Sue us.”

Going to court could have amounted to financial suicide for our family, or at the very least, hardship. There was no way I wanted to fight this battle in court, or even in an arbitration hearing.

I wanted to fight it where the odds were more in my favour: the court of public opinion. And for most people that’s a good strategy. It’s a lot cheaper than hiring lawyers but it does depend on having good communication skills.

In my experience most companies will do the right thing – but only under threat of having their behavior (which often amounts to bullying) exposed to the world. Everyone – from private enterprises, to public companies, to local and federal governments, is sensitive to public opinion.

Excerpted from Fight Back: 81 Ways to Save Money and Protect Yourselffrom Corporate Trickery. Copyright (c) 2012 by Ellen Roseman. Excerpted with permission of the publisher John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.

About Franke James:


Franke James, MFA is the author/inventor of Dear Office-Politics: the game everyone plays and the Founder of Office-Politics.com. Franke is also the author/artist of Bothered by My Green Conscience. Franke brings over 20 years of real-world business experience to her role as an adviser on OfficePolitics.com. See her 2012 quiz for CNN’s Global Office show. Franke has been quoted and featured in print, radio and TV on the topic of office-politics by the New York Times, Chatelaine Magazine, Inc. Magazine,  the Globe and Mail, Job Postings Magazine, CBC Radio, CTV News and other media.  (Follow her on Twitter @officepolitics and @frankejames) 



About Ellen Roseman and ‘Fight Back’:

Ellen Roseman is a journalist who sticks up for ordinary Canadians. As a long-time advocate for consumer rights, she’s become a brand name for activism and a champion at helping consumers fight back against injustices. Her columns appear three times a week in the Toronto Star and her popular blog, EllenRoseman.com, has been online since 2007. She’s the author of seven books, including Money 101: Every Canadian’s Guide to Personal Finance and Money 201: More Personal Finance Advice for Every Canadian. She teaches investing and personal finance at the University of Toronto’s continuing studies department and Ryerson University’s Chang School, and is on the board of FAIR (Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights) and Community Legal Education Ontario (CLEO).

In Fight Back, Ellen Roseman distills the financial advice she gives in her columns and blogs into 81 quick tips that all Canadians can use to help them spend sensibly, save money, and avoid costly consumer traps. This book of “personal finance greatest hits” is filled with illustrative examples and cautionary advice from Roseman and stories from her faithful readers. Filled with a wealth of information, the book includes the low-down on dealing with banks and car dealers, cutting costs of communication services, improving your credit, buying and renovating a home, fighting online fraud, ensuring you have the right insurance, and more.

Ellen Roseman has assisted HRNC to fight back!

DISCIPLINE FOR INAPPROPRIATE OFF-DUTY USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

By Michelle Alton and Thomas Agnew, Hicks Morley LLP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The utilization of social media has grown exponentially in the past few years. In light of this, employers have more reason than ever to consider how to effectively manage employees utilizing social media sites with respect to limiting potentially negative effects in the workplace.
In the context of an employment relationship, social media issues can arise in one of two ways: first, issues may arise if and when employees utilize social media sites while they are at work; and second, issues can arise when employees utilize social media sites inappropriately outside the workplace. In general, employers can only regulate off-duty conduct when it can be shown that the conduct will have an impact on the employer’s interests, and/or the workplace in general.

In this context, one of the most common examples of inappropriate employee use of social media sites is when employees post content that is critical of their employer and/or other employees working for the employer.

Recently, Arbitrator Chauvin considered what discipline was appropriate in a case where three employees had posted inappropriate comments on the social media site, Facebook. In his decision, he provided a detailed overview of the general arbitral principles relating to employee discipline or discharge for inappropriate use of social media sites.

Background
All three of the employees involved were employed by Bell Technical Solutions (“BTS”) as Technicians. Two of the employees, referred to as Mr. A and Mr. S in the decision, were regular part-time employees. The third employee, Mr. W, was a temporary part-time employee. At the time that the discipline was imposed, Mr. A had worked for the employer for 9.5 years and was 41 years old. Mr. S had worked for the employer for 7.5 years and was also 41 years old, whereas Mr. W had only worked for the employer for 18 months and was 20 years old.
Mr. A and Mr. W were terminated for the inappropriate comments that they had posted on Facebook regarding BTS and/or their supervisor, Mr. B. Mr. S was suspended for five days for making inappropriate comments about Mr. B on Facebook. All three of the employees were warned to stop posting these inappropriate comments on Facebook, but failed to do so.
During the initial discipline meetings, Mr. W and Mr. A were very unapologetic and defiant. As a result, BTS terminated the employment of both individuals. Mr. S was more reasonable in the discipline meeting, and as a result, BTS chose to suspend him for five days.

Significant Discipline Warranted
Arbitrator Chauvin upheld the five day suspension of Mr. S and the termination of Mr. W. He substituted the termination of Mr. S with a one-year disciplinary suspension without pay.
In making his decision, Arbitrator Chauvin noted the following:

•  It is well-established that inappropriate Facebook postings can result in discipline or discharge, depending on the severity of the postings. The nature and frequency of the comments must be carefully considered to determined how insolent, insulting, insubordinate and/or damaging they were to the individual(s) or the company.

• When determining the appropriate disciplinary measure, it is important to consider the following factors: whether the individual was uncooperative, defiant, and/or dishonest during the employer’s investigation and whether the individual admitted to engaging in misconduct, accepted responsibility, showed remorse and/or offered a genuine apology.

• Provocation, which could include inappropriate behaviour by a manager, can be considered as a significant mitigating factor.

On the basis of these factors, Arbitrator Chauvin found that the postings of Mr. S were less offensive and frequent than those of Mr. A and Mr. W. The postings were also not related to BTS, but to Mr. B, who the Arbitrator concluded had a temper and could sometimes become upset or yell at work. Nonetheless, the postings were serious, Mr. S was insolent to his supervisor and he failed to stop posting when he was first asked to do so. Therefore, the five day suspension was upheld.

In contrast, Arbitrator Chauvin concluded that Mr. W’s postings were very disparaging of BTS and Mr. B, and included profanities and inappropriate pictures. The postings were made over a prolonged period of time, and were premeditated and deliberate. Mr. W refused to stop making the postings despite being asked to do so on two occasions. The postings were very public, Mr. W lacked remorse, did not acknowledge any wrongdoing and did not provide a sincere apology. The Arbitrator found that there was no provocation in the situation and in light of Mr. W’s short-service and temporary, part-time position, the termination was upheld.

Finally, Arbitrator Chauvin concluded that Mr. A’s misconduct was also very serious and warranted significant discipline. However, he noted that unlike Mr. W, Mr. A did not make any postings which were derogatory to or ridiculed BTS, provocation was a factor as Mr. B had acted in appropriately with Mr. A, and Mr. A’s length of service was much longer than Mr. W’s. Therefore, Arbitrator Chauvin concluded that it was appropriate to substitute Mr. A’s termination with a one-year disciplinary suspension without pay.

Accordingly, this decision confirms that depending on the circumstances, significant discipline can be imposed when social media is utilized in an inappropriate manner outside of the workplace. When assessing the appropriate disciplinary penalty, employers must consider all of the factors articulated above, especially when more than one employee is involved. All allegations should be put to each employee, and notes should be made about the employee’s behaviour during the investigation. Any possible provocation in the circumstances should also be assessed, as this can be a mitigating factor.

Best Practices
In order to effectively manage employee social media use as it may impact on the workplace, it is critical that employers develop and consistently enforce policies and procedures regarding social media.
Employers should ensure that they have social media policies in place that include:

• A direction regarding whether social media use in the workplace is permitted. It should be clear to employees whether they can access social media sites during working hours.

• A statement that posts on social media sites will not be considered private, even if a posting is made to a limited number of “friends’. Employees should also understand that if they chose to identify themselves as an employee of a particular employer, they must represent themselves and the employer appropriately.

• A rule that prohibits employees from speaking on the employer’s behalf without permission, and a rule that requires employees to use a disclaimer when publishing communications that may be perceived as the employer’s communication.

• Guidelines as to what kind of posts are acceptable and what kind of posts are considered inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate posts include disclosing personal information of clients, posting confidential company information, and/or posting disparaging comments about the employer or other employees.

•  A statement that any violations of the policy may be grounds for discipline, and in appropriate circumstances, may be grounds for termination.

• A provision that employees should also be encouraged to ask questions regarding the policy.

It is important to have a strong social media policy in place, so that employees will not only know what their obligations are, but so that they will understand that inappropriate utilization can lead to significant disciplinary consequences.

Michelle Alton and Tom Agnew are lawyers in Hicks Morley’s Toronto office and they assist municipal clients of all sizes with labour and employment issues. Michelle can be reached at 416.864.7238 and Tom can be reached at 416.864.7227.

Thank you to the OMHRA Echo for allowing republication of this article.

Bermingham Construction Ltd. and Supervisor Fined $69,000 After Worker Injured

October 11, 2012

Hamilton, ON - Bermingham Construction Ltd., a Hamilton construction company, was fined $65,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured. A supervisor at the company was fined $4,000 in relation to the same incident.

On January 7, 2010, at the company's Hamilton facility, a worker was refueling a mobile crane. The worker had climbed onto the crane and opened the lid of its fuel tank when the lid fell on the worker's hand. The worker was injured falling from the crane.

Bermingham Construction Ltd. was convicted, as an employer, of failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that the fuel tank lid was secured during fuelling. The supervisor was convicted of failing to take the same precaution.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Vincent Formosi. In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Information at a Glance

Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    45 Main St. E.
                                    Hamilton, ON

Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Vincent Formosi

Date of Sentencing:    October 4, 2012

Defendants:                 Bermingham Construction Ltd. and Supervisor

Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety

Convictions:                 Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(2)(h)
                                    Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 27(2)(c)

Crown Counsel:           Alicia Gordon-Fagan

Cascades Canada ULC Fined $80,000 After Worker Injured

September 19, 2012 3:10 PM

Toronto, ON - Cascades Canada ULC, a multinational packaging and tissue company operating as Cascade Tissue Group - Toronto, was fined $80,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured. 

On June 24, 2011, at the company's facility in Toronto, a worker returning to the receiving area from break was struck by a forklift carrying a large roll of paper. The worker's leg was injured. The worker was not wearing a safety vest and there were no barriers in the receiving area to protect workers from forklift traffic. Furthermore, the only sign warning of vehicular traffic was posted at the plant's gatehouse lobby.

Cascades Canada ULC operating as Cascade Tissue Group - Toronto pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that materials were transported in a way and with appropriate precautions to protect the safety of a worker.  

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Ronald Johnston. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Information at a Glance
Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    70 Centre Ave.
                                    Toronto, ON
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Ronald Johnston
Date of Sentencing:    September 13, 2012
Defendants:                Cascades Canada ULC operating as Cascade Tissue Group - Toronto
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Convictions:                Ontario Regulation 851, Section 45(a)
Crown Counsel:          Jason Tam

Ottawa Catholic District School Board Fined $275,000 After Classroom Explosion

August 16, 2012

Ottawa, ON - The Ottawa Catholic District School Board was fined $275,000 today for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after an explosion in a school classroom that killed a student.
On May 26, 2011, students in a Mother Teresa High School classroom were making barbeques out of steel barrels. As a student was cutting a barrel with a hand grinder, the barrel exploded. The student was killed.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the barrel the student was using had been washed out with a flammable cleaner. The barrel had been stored with its caps closed prior to the class project, allowing flammable cleaning vapours to accumulate inside the barrel. When the student was cutting the barrel, a spark from the grinder ignited the vapours, causing the explosion.
The investigation also found that the school board did not have adequate review and assessment procedures in place to ensure hot work on drums or containers could be carried out safely.

The Ottawa Catholic District School Board pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer, to provide information, instruction and supervision to the teacher concerning safe work practices and recognition of the hazards associated with the class project.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Claudette Coulas. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.


Court Information at a Glance
Location:                    Ontario Court of Justice
                                    100 Constellation Cres.
                                    Ottawa, ON
Judge:                         Justice of the Peace Claudette Coulas
Date of Sentencing:     August 16, 2012
Defendant:                   Ottawa Catholic District School Board
Matter:                         Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction:                  Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 25(2)(a)
Crown Counsel:           Daniel Kleiman

Company Director Fined $90,000 Under OHSA After Workers Killed

  

July 13, 2012 11:20 AM

Toronto, ON - Joel Swartz, the director of Metron Construction Corporation, a Toronto constructor, was fined $90,000 after pleading guilty to violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after four workers were killed and another worker was seriously injured.

On December 24, 2009, six workers were on a suspended work platform, also known as a swing stage, at a construction project on Kipling Ave. in Toronto. The swing stage collapsed and fell 13 floors, killing four of the workers and seriously injuring another worker. The only worker properly attached to fall protection was held by the lifeline and pulled to safety.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the deceased workers had not been properly tied off to a lifeline, and had not been properly trained in the use of fall protection. The swing stage had been overloaded and it was later determined to be defective and hazardous.
Joel Swartz pleaded guilty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to failing, as adirector, to take all reasonable care to ensure that:

• workers did not use a defective or hazardous swing stage
• the swing stage was not loaded in excess of the weight it was meant to bear
• workers were adequately trained in the use of fall protection by a competent person
• Metron Construction Corporation prepared and maintained written training and instruction records for each worker

Metron Construction Corporation was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and was fined $200,000 in relation to the same incident. Metron's conviction was pursuant to amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada relating to workplace safety which have been in force since 2004.  The criminal charges were laid by the police.

The fines were imposed by Judge Bigelow of the Ontario Court of Justice. In addition to the OHSA fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Other defendants facing charges stemming from this incident are still before the court.

Court Information at a Glance
Location:                     Ontario Court of Justice
                                    Old City Hall
                                    60 Queen Street West
                                    Toronto, ON
Judge:                         Judge Bigelow                                   
Date of Sentencing:   July 13, 2012
Defendants:                 Joel Swartz
                                    Metron Construction Corporation
Matter:                        Occupational Health and Safety
Conviction:                 Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 26.2(1)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 26.2(3)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 93(2)(a)
                                   Ontario Regulation 213/91, Section 134(3)
Crown Counsel:         Tom Schneider

Small Business in Niagara

In 2008, my demographic studies put small businesses (under 50 employees) in Niagara at 75%.  The Labour Market Plan 2009 - 2013 by our provincially mandated local board - Niagara Workforce Planning Board - put that number at 99% - with 50% of those as owner/operator - zero employees.

The hot new job in Niagara seems to be entrepreneurial!

Many in the Niagara Region are screaming for Leadership...from grassroots to Regional Integrated Economic Development Commission.  There are businesses that want to invest in Niagara.  They want to build their business in Niagara and they want to raise their family in Niagara.

We can have the best of both worlds; living and working together; collaboratively instead of competing against each other.  Partners in (your industry here), Competitors in the Field (borrowed from the Niagara Industrial Association.)

It raises my eyebrows each March when the Sunshine List is delivered to us via the local media.  We have also been called the "Call Centre Capital of Ontario".  There is a huge gap between minimum wage at $10.25 an hour and over $100,000 per year.

How many jobs are left in Niagara that cover that gap?  The gap between 40 hours of work at minimum wage which earns $21,320 and over $100,00?  If you don't work for a government, government funded or non-profit funded organization; what are your chances for more than minimum wage?

These are my opinions and observations.  I learned a long time ago that we can make numbers into what ever story we want told.

I would love to hear some feedback from you.  I know you have an opinion.  You might not have been looking for a rant on the HRNC Blog - but employment IS our business.

www.hrnc.ca

Fines for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured

Court Bulletin

Ministry of Labour 12-17 For Immediate Release
March 15, 2012

Manufacturer Fined $50,000 After Worker Injured

Brampton, ON – Surteco Canada Ltd., carrying on business as Doellken-Woodtape, an international manufacturer of plastic edging for use on furniture, was fined $50,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.
On March 30, 2010, a worker at the company’s Brampton plant was cleaning out a hopper. The worker reached a hand into the hopper while an auger inside it was slowly rotating. The worker’s hand was injured when it was caught by the auger and trapped against the hopper wall.
Surteco Canada Ltd., carrying on business as Doellken-Woodtape, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the auger had stopped rotating before the worker began cleaning the hopper.
The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Thomas McKeogh. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Court Bulletin

Ministry of Labour  12-18 For Immediate Release
March 15, 2012

Con Cast Pipe Inc. Fined $55,000 After Worker Injured

Guelph, ON – Con Cast Pipe Inc., a Guelph manufacturer of concrete infrastructure products, was fined $55,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.
On August 24, 2010, workers were pouring concrete into a steel form. One worker was standing beside the form and using a remote control to operate an overhead crane to pour buckets of concrete into the form. Without warning, one side of the steel form detached and fell on the worker. The worker suffered multiple fractures and a punctured lung.
A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the welds used to hold the form together were inadequate to resist the weight of the wet concrete being poured into the form.
Con Cast Pipe Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that the form was designed and constructed to resist all loads and forces which were likely to be applied to it.
The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Adriana Magoulas. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

www.hrnc.ca

Fatal accidents in the workplace.

Small Business HR

Fatal accidents - does anyone have the actual numbers with ages available?

My experience in the Niagara Region has been young workers and lack of training when working with machinery or around machinery. ex: Boom truck operator hits overhead power line and 18 year old killed by touching electrified truck; or Take Your Kid to Work Day at (John Deere-now closed) 14 year olds driving gator in yard (no training) hit the transport bed backing up to dock. Examples of deaths in the workplace - not injuries. They are still happening. I do not know the age of the electrician who was recently killed at the GM plant when crushed by a crane against pipes - probably still under investigation. What is happening? Workers are still dying on the job - not just loosing fingers in a saw! Am I the only one aware of this? Have the safety procedures been taught? They were not taught to the dead 18 year old and neither were they taught to the 14 year old. There have been many changes in safety procedures since two of these deaths. But an electrician still died - May he rest in peace and God be with his family.

Comment from LinkedIn Poll on Canadian HR Law