• New Year’s Day
• Family Day
• Good Friday
• Victoria Day
• Canada Day
• BC Day
• Labour Day
• National Day for Truth and Reconciliation
• Thanksgiving Day
• Remembrance Day
• Christmas Day

Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, and Boxing Day are not mandatory statutory holidays.

Eligibility for Statutory Holiday Pay

To qualify for statutory holiday pay, employees must:

• Have worked for at least 30 calendar days before the holiday.

• Have worked at least 15 of the 30 days leading up to the holiday.

However, employees working under an averaging agreement do not need to meet the 15-day minimum in the 30 days prior to the statutory holiday.

What Employees Get Paid

Employees who are given the day off on a statutory holiday are entitled to average day’s pay.

Employees who work on a statutory holiday must be paid:

• Time-and-a-half for the first 12 hours worked.

• Double-time for any hours worked beyond 12 hours.

• Plus, they will receive average day’s pay.

How Average Day’s Pay is Calculated

An average day’s pay is calculated by dividing the total regular earnings (wages, plus any vacation pay received for taken vacations) by the number of days worked in the previous 30 calendar days.

Note: Overtime pay is not included in regular earnings.

Days Worked

“Days worked” refers to any day in which wages were earned, as well as any annual vacation days taken within the 30-day period before the statutory holiday.

Employers and a majority of employees can agree to substitute another day for a statutory holiday. The substitute day must be treated the same as a statutory holiday.

Factsheet: Statutory holidays

Reprinted from https://canada-holidays.ca/

The post BC Statutory Holidays appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

The problem is that not all employees quit in a reliable fashion. Ideally, the employee will provide a letter of resignation and then, on the designated day, will cease to provide employment services. In that instance, there should be no difficulty concluding a voluntary resignation has occurred.

Many times, however, a so-called resignation is the result of a momentary, emotional blowup. The employee, in a rush of anger, declares, “That’s it, I’m out of here!” (or something similar) and storms out of the workplace. The employer, eager to take advantage of the situation, jumps on the opportunity to accept the resignation. Then the employee returns (after having cooled off) and declares he never had any actual intention of quitting.

This is when lawyers and judges are called upon to assist in determining the impact of what happened. This situation occurs frequently enough that a legal doctrine has developed to address the dilemma.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently dealt with this in the circumstance of an employee who left work after issues arose with her executive director. The employee removed all of her personal effects from the workplace and sent a letter to their Board of Directors alleging various shortcomings on the part of her boss.

At a meeting with the Board of Directors, the employee angrily confirmed her intention to depart and that she had no desire to be associated with the employer any longer. But, when an opportunity was later provided to the employee to confirm her resignation in writing, she refused to do so.

Instead, the employee claimed she had no intention of resigning, would be using up accrued sick time, and provided no indication of when she would return to her duties. The employer then communicated to her that it was accepting her resignation.

The employee took the predictable action, suing the employer for wrongful dismissal. The Court had to determine whether, in fact, the employee had voluntarily resigned from her employment.

The Court stated that the test is whether, in all the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude by the employee’s statements that she had resigned. The evidence was that the Board of Directors had heard the employee unequivocally state her resignation. This, however, had come at a moment when the employee was extremely angry and upset so the Court went on to consider the surrounding circumstances.

The Court found that, despite her later attempt to cast her actions in another light, she had clearly indicated an intention to resign. She had refused to provide medical reasons for her continued absence, had requested the payout of accumulated overtime hours, and had requested a letter of reference. In addition, she had removed all her personal effects from the office.

So, while the employee repeatedly stated she had no intention to resign, her actions betrayed that position. In all, a reasonable person would have concluded that the employee had resigned. As such, her action for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

Employers would do well to look at the issue using a two-stage analysis. First, has the employee used words which, when viewed objectively, indicate an intention to resign? The words don’t have to be as clear as “I quit” but should have a similar effect.

Second, have the employee’s subsequent actions indicated a subjective intention on her part to resign? If so, then initial words will have been confirmed and the two-stage analysis should be complete.

Watch out, however, for the employee who quickly recants, indicating an intention to remain in employment. That is often the case after the emotional blowup. In those circumstances, judges can be expected to conclude the incident was little more than a momentary, emotional lapse and will give the benefit of the doubt to the employee.

These items are intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. The legal issues addressed in these items are subject to changes in the applicable law. You should always seek competent legal advice concerning any specific issues affecting you or your business.

Also read:

• Onerous Terms Not Necessarily Unconscionable
• When Terminating for Cause, Measure Twice and Cut Once
• Severance packages: – What’’s Fair?

The post When Is A Quit Not A Quit? appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

The probation period can be viewed, if used correctly, as one long audition for a job. In revealing an individual’s true skills and attitude, it far surpasses any interviewing technique, new or old. There is no substitute for viewing an individual on the job in real work situations.

Legally, the impact of the probation period amounts to one thing only – a reduced standard of just cause for summary dismissal. It allows the employer, temporarily, to take advantage of a much more forgiving just cause threshold when deciding to summarily dismiss an employee. However, employers should be mindful that the legal onus is still on it to justify the summary dismissal of a probationary employee (just as it is in the case of a regular employee).

The common law provides employers with the ability to hire an employee on probation. This is only true, however, if certain steps are taken by the employer to properly establish the probation period. The probation period does not, contrary to what seems to be a widely held belief, arise unless it is properly brought into effect by the party who will later seek to obtain the benefit of its use.

It is especially important for employers to properly document and implement probation terms because of the way courts treat dismissed short-term employees. Court awards indicate that employees with a short period of service (up to about 2 years) tend to receive disproportionately high damages for wrongful dismissal. Awards in the range of 6-12 months of pay are no longer uncommon.

Employers often lean on the provisions of the B.C. Employment Standards Act when imposing initial probation periods. The Act impliedly supports such a concept, stating that no notice or severance pay is required for an employee who has worked less than three months.

But the Act is not the only legal authority when it comes to the obligation to provide working notice or severance pay. The common law of employment implies a term that, unless just cause exists, reasonable working notice of termination (or pay in lieu) must be provided. There is no implied exception to this rule for so-called probationary employees.

There is even less of a legal basis for presuming that a probationary period automatically arises later in the employment relationship (such as after a promotion or a transfer). In those circumstances, neither the common law nor the Act provide support for the existence of a probation period. And, an employer’s unilateral imposition of a probation period can even amount to a constructive dismissal.

Employers should also be aware that a probation “policy” will not necessarily bind the employee. If the policy is not made a binding element of the employment contract, it will be of little value. As a result, the employer and employee should agree, in writing, prior to the commencement of the employment, on the terms of a binding probationary period.

If the parties do agree on a probationary period, they should define what the standard of review will be (the most common standard is suitability). They should then go a step further and set out the various criteria on which the employee will be measured during the probation period.

Common law decisions indicate that employers must apply objective criteria in performing a good faith assessment of the probationary employee. And, the employer’s conclusions must, always, be reasonable in the circumstances.

The probation terms should clearly identify the length of the period and should provide the employer with an additional period of time, after the expiry of the probation, to review the employee’s performance and make a decision. This protects the employer against a finding that the employee has reverted to regular status and can no longer be dismissed using the lower standard.

Documentation should be kept, during the probation period, of the employee’s progress in relation to the agreed-upon criteria. The employer should be pro-active in counseling the employer on her shortcomings. Specific instructions should be provided on achieving the desired standard and the employer should provide its assistance. These are important elements in demonstrating the employee has been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the employer’s standards of conduct and performance.

An employer following all these steps will find itself in an excellent position to defend against wrongful dismissal claims by dismissed probationary employee. Those who choose to ignore these requirements will find themselves in court wondering why they didn’t do the job properly to begin with.

These items are intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. The legal issues addressed in these items are subject to changes in the applicable law. You should always seek competent legal advice concerning any specific issues affecting you or your business.

Read also:

• How to Ensure a Successful Probationary Period
• 5 Things Managers Need to Know
• Writing Interview Invitations & Samples

The post The Power of the Probationary Period appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

In some instances, the law reveals that the severance formula can’t be enforced. For example, this happens when the formula provides for notice (or pay in lieu) at a level that does not meet the statutory minimums in the applicable employment standards legislation. It also happens when significant changes to the employment relationship have occurred since the contract was signed.

A third instance which can make an employment contract unenforceable is when the agreement itself can be said to be unconscionable. This happens when there has been an inequality of bargaining power. In other words, the stronger party has used its bargaining power to achieve an advantage over the other, so the resulting agreement which is substantially unfair to the weaker party.

But just because the terms of a contract may be onerous to one party or the other is not a basis for concluding the agreement is unconscionable. In fact, a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision tackled such a scenario.

John Finlan was hired by Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers as its Chief Information Officer in 1999. When they hired him, Ritchie Bros. provided Mr. Finlan with an employment contract containing a clause calling for notice of termination equivalent to that set out in BC’s Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Finlan was surprised by the requirement to sign a contract, but was given time to review the contract at home before signing it. Ultimately, he provided the signed contract to Ritchie Bros. before starting employment with them.

Roughly five years later, Ritchie Bros. terminated Mr. Finlan’s employment. He sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming pay in lieu of notice according to the common law of employment. The basis for his claim was his view that the severance clause in the employment contract was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.

The Court then restated the elements which must be present in order to find that a contractual term is unconscionable:

• there must be an inequality of bargaining power between the parties
• the stronger party must have used its bargaining advantage; and
• the result must be an agreement which is substantially unfair to the weaker party.

It is crucial to remember that these three elements of unconscionable agreements are conjunctive – they must all exist for the agreement to be unconscionable.

The Court determined the agreement between Mr. Finlan and Ritchie Bros. was not unconscionable. It noted he was an experienced IT manager familiar with the industry, he was not in a vulnerable position when he accepted employment: any pressure he might have felt to sign the contract didn’t originate with Ritchie Bros., and they did not in any way coerce him to signing the contract.

Notably, the Court stated that it is not the employer’s obligation to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each contractual term in the contract of employment. It is sufficient if the employee has time to review the contract on his own, in the absence of any influence from the prospective employer, and has the opportunity to seek out advice about the implications of the contract.

The Court concluded that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous, Mr. Finlan signed the contract with full knowledge of what was being offered, and he did so without any form of pressure from Ritchie Bros. As a result, Mr. Finlan’s claim for damages under the common law was dismissed.

However, this case brings up an interesting side-note. Notwithstanding the clause in Mr. Finlan’s contract calling for only five weeks pay in lieu of notice, Ritchie Bros. actually offered (and paid) Mr. Finlan six months’ salary upon termination of his employment.

Even this gratuitous payment wasn’t enough to dissuade Mr. Finlan from suing (and claiming Ritchie Bros. had treated him with bad faith!). It just goes to show that, sometimes, even treating people with civility, courteousness and professionalism isn’t enough.

Read also:

• Managing The Risk of Constructive Dismissal
• When is a Quit Not a Quit?
• Severance packages: – What’’s Fair?

The post Onerous Terms Not Necessarily Unconscionable appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

How much notice do employees legally need before you can lay them off? Although many people think two weeks is the legal standard, Canadian common law for employment outlines termination notice in detail. If you don’t want to give employees working notice, you need to pay them the equivalent wages – also known as severance pay or pay in lieu of notice.

When you give an employee notice of a lay off or termination, this provides time for the employee to look for a new job. How much notice you need to give largely depends on four factors: the employee’s age; length of service; type of position; and the availability of similar employment.

Arguably, the most important factor is length of service. But figuring out length of service can be more difficult that it might seem. It’s particularly tricky when the employee worked for you for two or more discrete periods. In those instances, the employee often demands working notice (or severance pay) based on the combined length of the periods of service.

The employer will often oppose that method of calculation, insisting that only the most recent service should be counted. The courts are often asked to resolve this stalemate.

This same debate also comes up when the employment has been continuous but at some point the business was sold to a new owner. The employee will demand working notice (or severance pay) based on the entire period of service, not just the portion while serving the successor owner.

Of course, the successor owner will only want to provide notice or pay based on the period of time that it has owned the company. However, the courts usually offer little sympathy for that point of view. In fact, a recent BC Supreme Court case covered this sort of dispute.

Judy Perkins was a dental assistant who had worked for a dentist for approximately 23 years. At that point the dental practice was sold to a new owner, Donald Shuen. Some elements of Perkins’ employment changed under the new owner, but for the most part she continued to perform the same duties.

Six months later, Shuen terminated Perkins’ employment. Perkins sued for wrongful dismissal, seeking to use her entire period of employment as a basis for determining her entitlement to pay in lieu of notice.

Shuen took the position that the business was insolvent when he took it over and that the prior dentist had expressly terminated her employment when the practice was sold. Shuen argued that Perkins’ notice entitlement should be based on only six months of service.

The BC Supreme Court rejected Shuen’s view of the sequence of events. The Court cited the implied understanding that employees are given credit for years of past service when a business is purchased. This implied understanding applies unless the successor owner expressly negates that implied term.

Notably, there was no evidence the former owner had ever expressly terminated Perkins’ employment. When asked by Perkins whether her employment was to be terminated, the prior owner indicated that technically she would be terminated and then rehired but that, practically, nothing would change.

The Court had little trouble concluding that Perkins should be given credit for her entire period of service, including the 23 years spent with the former employer. In doing so, it relied heavily on the implied term that employees continuing in the service of a purchased business will be given credit for past years of service.

Although not cited in that decision, the Employment Standards Act also affects these situations. The Act states that if all or part of a business or its assets is sold, the employment of employees of the business is deemed to be continuous and uninterrupted by the sale.

This further strengthens the conclusion that employees continuing in employment with a purchaser of a business are entitled to credit for all their years of service. It may also serve to negate any contractual terms to the contrary.

The combination of the common law rule (presuming that employees are to be given credit for past service) and the statutory rule (deeming the employment to be continuous) means the successor employer has a difficult challenge in avoiding liability for the employees’ entire period of service.

So how can you, as a successor employer, protect yourself against this liability? The only sure way is to negotiate protective terms into the agreement to purchase the business. This can be achieved by obtaining a binding indemnification from the vendor against such costs.

Better yet, you can negotiate to temporarily retain part of the purchase price to fund the costs of terminating employees soon after the purchase occurs. Either way, it’s an issue best addressed at the time the purchase of the business is negotiated.

The post Length of Tenure Influences Notice Entitlement appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

Effective January 1, 2015, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) introduced a new skilled immigrant intake system—Express Entry (EE). Originally called Expression of Interest, it is modelled after New Zealand’s immigration system.

Though little has changed regarding the categories and criteria, what has changed is the application assessment and management system. As such, Canada still chooses its skilled immigrants on the basis their economic viability assessed by four main factors: language, education, work experience and skill transferability. Potential immigrants who qualify in this stream can apply as: Federal Skilled Worker, Federal Skilled Trades, Canadian Experience Class and Provincial Nominees.

The Process

To be considered for Express Entry, a potential immigrant submits an online profile in the EE pool with their personal qualifications for ranking. Based on the calculations, the profile is ranked against others in the EE pool to a maximum of 1200 points.
A candidate can obtain points in the following areas: human capital/spousal factors (500), skill transferability (100) and job offer (600). CIC will then issue Invitations to Apply (ITA) to candidates drawn from the active profile pool. Candidates who receive an ITA have 60 days to complete the rest of their CIC application. Only those who have an ITA will be able to apply for permanent residency. Candidate EE profiles remain valid in the pool until they are selected or for up to one year.

Canadian Employers

Another feature of Express Entry is candidate job matching through the Canada Job Bank. Canadian employers who cannot find suitable Canadians for their jobs will be able to hire and support a foreign national to immigrate to Canada. The EE profile also enables the applicant to search for Canadian jobs while being visible to employers looking in the Job Bank for would-be job seekers. This employment module is planned for launch later in the spring of 2015.

Existing Work Permit Holders

Under the Express Entry system, only those with ITA’s can apply as skilled immigrants. Those foreign workers who received work permits through various international agreements such as NAFTA or a working holiday program will not qualify unless they have a validated permanent job offer. These foreign workers will require employer assistance in the form of the Provincial Nomination or Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to obtain the 600 job offer points for their eligibility profile. These are vetted and approved through a third party government agency, and they both have different requirements to meet. In the case of the LMIA, the employer must conduct a full scale (in Canada) recruitment for the position.

ITA Draws

The ITA pool will be constantly refreshed and continually updated with new applicant entries and hopefully the policy makers will be looking at practical considerations from different angles. CIC announced its first ITA picks for Express Entry this past weekend; those with 886 points received the invitation to move forward on their permanent residency application to Canada.

As with any new government initiative, the real life scenarios and practicalities will take time to unfold. There still isn’t a lot of information available. However, it will be tougher to get a high EE score without a validated job offer. Perhaps the future draws will be adjusted to account for those who currently possess different kinds of valid temporary work permits. For now, Canadian employers will need to assist their existing foreign workers to immigrate with a LMIA or Provincial Nominee application. (ultracold.fuw.edu.pl)

Express Entry isn’t the fastest way to permanent immigration for everyone, just those who have an Invitation to Apply.

Amelia Chan is the founder of Higher Options Consulting, a boutique HR and immigration firm. Amelia is a CHRP and RCIC who uses her HR and entrepreneurial experience to create practical operational solutions. She is a regular contributor to the HRMA publication, PeopleTalk.

BCjobs.ca and TheJobCentre.ca can help you with your job posting needs. Every job posted includes a customized letter confirming your posting, offering proof of your advertisement to satisfy current LMIA requirements.

Read also:

• Hiring a Foreign Worker or non-Canadian
• Recruiting Non-Traditional Employees

The post Canada’s Express Entry appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

• After three months – one week
• After 12 months – two weeks
• After three years – one week for each completed year of employment, to a maximum of eight weeks

No severance pay is required when an employee quits, retires or is terminated for just cause. It is up to the employer to show termination was for just cause.

Additional notice or pay is required if 50 or more employees are terminated within a two-month period at a single location.

Factsheet: Termination of Employment

Reprinted from http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/esaguide/#2

Don’t forget to create a jobseeker profile and get Job Alerts sent directly to your inbox!

The post Severance Pay in BC appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

May 1, 2011 – $8.75 per hour;
November 1, 2011 – $9.50 per hour;
May 1, 2012 – $10.25 per hour;
September 15, 2015 – $10.45 per hour.

Minimum wage applies to all employees regardless of how they are paid – hourly, salary, commission or other incentive basis. Salespersons on straight commission must be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked in a pay period.

Minimum wage rates for live-in home support workers, resident caretakers and farm workers who hand harvest certain fruit and vegetable crops are set out in the Employment Standards Regulation.

Employees who serve liquor are entitled to the liquor server minimum wage. Tips or gratuities are not wages.  Employees must be paid at least minimum wage in addition to any tips or gratuities they receive. The liquor server minimum wage is as follows:

May 1, 2011 – $8.50 per hour;
November 1, 2011 – $8.75 per hour;
May 1, 2012 – $9.00 per hour;
September 15, 2015 – $9.20 per hour.

Factsheet: Minimum Wage

The post Minimum Wage in BC appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

We are joining the ranks of Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan for example, that already have language about bullying in their legislation.

What does this legislation mean for employers? Well, it means that they must create policies that speak to what bullying and harassment are and they must also educate all employees at all levels of their organization, on how to deal with bullying in the workplace.

Supervisors and managers will need to know how to recognize if bullying is happening in the workplace and employees will need to know what avenues are open to them in terms of making a complaint and what the process will be once a complaint has been made.

As an employer, you will want to be sure that

• Complaints are taken seriously and appropriate investigations are done when needed.
• You will want to ensure that those responsible for handling the complaints are trained on how to deal with an investigation.
• You may also want to consider utilizing the services of an external investigator – and in the case of a serious complaint, or one in which there is more than one complainant – it is recommended that you consider an external source.
• You will want to be sure that documentation is in order to support whatever decisions are made as a result of your complaints or investigations.
• You will want to ensure that you communicate what the outcomes are to both the complainant and the accused party.

Within your policies, you will want to be clear about the definition of bullying and as a general guideline, what I recommend is that you look at how harassment is defined in your human rights code.

In Canada, of those provinces that previously passed legislation, bullying has been described as:

the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation, including ignoring and isolating the person.

Sometimes bullying is referred to as “psychological harassment” or “personal harassment.”

Do you think that bullying is really a problem in the workplace, or are people just whining about nothing and should they go along to get along?

To respond to this question, we look a look at the Province of Quebec since they were one of the first to pass this legislation. It was learned that one year following the coming into force of the new law, the Labour Standards Commission reported that it had received 2,500 complaints of psychological harassment, and that less than 1 per cent of these complaints were considered frivolous.

Bullying is, according to this information, alive and well in the workplace and there is a definite need for the new legislation here in B.C. We are now the fourth province to make an attempt at addressing this problem.

You may want to learn more about how to address bullying in your workplace as well. Be proactive if you are not yet in a position where legislation is passed. Create healthy work environments and reap the benefits of doing so. No, bullying is not new to the work place; it’s very much alive and well.

Hopefully, this legislation will bring us one step closer to realizing that successful businesses are those who work hard to eliminate bullying and harassment and have the policies and practices in place to do so as well as taking the actions necessary to provide safe work places.

The post Bill 14 is Here appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.

Even with the best of intentions, we can make errors in workplace investigations that are very costly not only in directly visible ways, but also through indirect costs such as organizational reputation, employee morale and of course, turnover.

When a complaint of wrong doing comes into an employer; let’s use harassment or workplace theft as an example, the complaint deserves an investigation. To what extent that investigation goes is very dependent upon the type of complaint. Consider the severity and impropriety of the act, the circumstances of each situation and whether the behaviour is prohibited under Canadian Human Rights or Provincial Human Rights as may be the case.

Fail to take any and all complaints seriously at your own peril. The importance of taking the time to investigate complaints cannot be overstated. And the time you take to start and complete them must be factored in as well.

Of course, the nature of the complaint will very much dictate the depth of the investigation. The investigation could be something as simple as checking time cards or door swipes to confirm an employee reported for duty on time. Follow up with the department manager and validate what information you’ve found. If indeed the complaint has been validated through your cursory check, we move further if necessary.

Talk with the ‘tardy’ employee and let him know about the situation and how it might be improved upon for if there is something like an accommodation going on.

Remember your co-workers, subordinates and other managers will be watching how you respond because who knows – it could be them that have questions in the future – you will be viewed as someone who is serious about creating healthy workplace because you really are about your process – Employees should feel safe in coming to you and they will if they believe you when you talk with them and know that you will protect the complaint as much as possible.

It sounds all formal and disconcerting when we mention workplace investigations, but if you have a healthy work place they should be few and far between. If people fear coming to you or feel there is no use because nothing will be done anyway – well then I dare say it’s not where you want to be. Healthy relationships require trust.

People see what’s going on at work – they see how the employer supports others – whether that support is on side with manager or with the employee. And there will be time when the employee has to admit that things could have been different and may have to change something as a result of an investigation; however we are all human and it proven time and time again, that do make poor judgement can be forgiven – it’s the lies and attitudes that cannot.

An investigation managed effectively can restore a relationship and boundaries can be established that everyone is good with. This might be a chance to restore a relationship if both parties are in sincere in doing so. So many times, conflicts come about and we discover at the root of the conflict that may well as the cause of investigations are easily resolved and it’s having the faith to do that that truly illustrates a good, healthy environment.

To be honest, not all things end well.

In serious allegations that are borne out, there may be dismissals (or more than one), there may be discipline on files, there may be people that quit the organization and move on – valuable people. These are part of life but you cannot fear them because it may impact your investigations.

Every organization, large or small, should have policies in place that speak to how employee complaints are addressed. Within those policies should be a statement relating to an investigation procedure.

There are processes that investigations must follow and someone taking on the responsibility of managing an investigation without adequate training can very quickly turn a simple issue into a major – and costly – concern. I recently took part in an investigations workshop and the information provided confirmed this fact.

An Investigation Gone Wrong

An employee receives his performance review and he is not happy with it. It’s more than that, he says he is being harassed and that some of the content in the review was not ever spoken in person.

He takes the complaint to human resources, who then proceeds to follow the steps in the procedures manual, goes immediately to the supervisor.

Well, what do you think happened then?

The supervisor hit the roof and told the human resources department that of course, it was completely unfounded.

Now our complainant is furious – he feels he came to the human resources department to complaint ‘about the supervisor being the harasser’ and she goes directly to him.

O.K., so what’s the next step in the procedures? (https://shlohmo.com/)  Try ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). How do you think that went?

Needless to say, the complaint that should have been a fairly easy one to manage, became long and complex and went on for a couple of years and more people got involved as the emotions ran high and some of the anger and feelings of betrayal stayed between the two parties.

This complaint that could have conceivably been handled through one or two conversations, if handled appropriately, went on for over 3 years. 3 years of supervisory time, employee time, production time (several more people ended up involved as it dragged along), human resource personnel time, etc.etc.

So, while there are procedures in place; we must also understand how to manage the complaint. Going directly to the supervisor in this case, ended up being the last place the investigation should have started.

If you have a fairly complex investigation, one that has serious allegations, you may wish to look at an external investigator. Will it cost you money? Absolutely! But if you don’t manage it effectively, it was cost you far more – and that’s a guarantee.

Reputations are damaged (for individuals and businesses)

If not handled expediently and with the time and energy it deserves; potential law suits could loom overhead.

Employee trust is weakened (which results in less productivity and attitudinal concerns).

And so it goes.

By all means, most of your complaints can and should be managed internally. This is because the majority of them should not be extremely serious in nature.

However; if you have an investigation that requires some added time that you cannot give it; or if it is serious enough that there could conceivably be ‘external charges’ brought against the company – leave it to someone that investigates for a living – take it outside.

Don’t just take my word for it – check out any number of employment law sites and have a peek.

As a final note, if your organization insists on doing your own investigations, then get the required training to make sure you do them well. What appears to be a large cost is very little when compared to an investigation gone wrong.

The post Handle Workplace Investigations with Care appeared first on BC Jobs Blog.