Can an employee be fired for taking a second job?

[gunluvr]

My daughter's employer fired her today when he found out she took a second job. She was working full time but had her hours reduced to 16 hrs. a week recently because another employee returned from leave. So, being a single mom, that wouldn't pay the bills so she took another part time job. When her boss found out, he immediately fired her. Can an employer do that? She's just been there two months and had no other complaints from her boss. Can't find anything about this in Alberta labor codes.

[buckbrush]

I could be wrong as I am no expert on this but I think with her only being employed for 2 months makes it possible for her job to be ended without notice for no reason at all.

[buckbrush]

Also, interested in replies from guys in the know.

A few years ago I was thinking of using some of my holiday days (wasn't used to having so many) from my job as a Toolhand to go relive on a rig and fill in for a driller that was taking some time off with no one on the crew to take his place.
I mentioned it to my employer and my boss pretty much shut it down saying that days off are meant for me to relax.

I didn't push it to much because the wife wanted me to take the time off anyways but still kind of seemed strange to not be allowed to work for someone else on my days off so long as their is no conflict of interest.

[Trochu]

Typical probation is 3 months. If that was the case in her situation, she can be fired for any /no reason.

[Bigwoodsman]

In Alberta you can be fired within the first 3 months without reason or notice. 3 months to two years an employer is required to give one week notice. After 2 years two weeks notice must be given. The notice gets longer the longer you’re employed.

BW

[SlightlyDistracting]

I just quit a job, because after a month the employer still didnt want to tell me how much I would earn hourly. It was $5per hour less than the same position I was at previous. WHen month end came, I was not surprised to see how low my wage was. What was surprising was when the owner wanted 2 weeks notice from me after giving him my notice. lol

The law says any and or no reason is needed to let someone go up to 3 months. No notice need be given.
It was kind of fun to explain to the owner that it goes both ways.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by buckbrush

Also, interested in replies from guys in the know.

A few years ago I was thinking of using some of my holiday days (wasn't used to having so many) from my job as a Toolhand to go relive on a rig and fill in for a driller that was taking some time off with no one on the crew to take his place.
I mentioned it to my employer and my boss pretty much shut it down saying that days off are meant for me to relax.

I didn't push it to much because the wife wanted me to take the time off anyways but still kind of seemed strange to not be allowed to work for someone else on my days off so long as their is no conflict of interest.

The reason your boss said that, is that he doesn’t want you doing your stint, working through your days off, and returning burnt out to start your stint again. That’s when accidents take place. They want people to come back fresh not bagged. You would be a hazard to yourself and the rest of the crew. Can’t really blame him.

[jstubbs]

My take on it: Employee comes back from leave, and they moved her to 16 hours a week, but if she was only filling in for someone, will they still even really have work for her to do? I feel the 16 hours a week might have been out of pity for her situation, and once they found out she found another job, let her go because they knew she would still be earning income instead of completely unemployed.

Or who knows, maybe your daughter was poor at the job and that was just their convenient reason to tell to her face. I don't mean this to be rude but there are plenty of jobs out there that some of us just aren't cut out for.

No employer is going to fire someone who only works 16 hours a week simply for having a second job.

[Talking moose]

Well that’s my best guess anyway...either that or they didn’t want you to see that the grass was actually greener on the other side of the fence. Buck brush

[3blade]

Yeah if she was still on probation, there’s no reason needed. I’d be very leery of a female family member working for someone who displays interest in her outside life and is controlling like that. Really shouldnt have mattered if she could still work her current schedule. Sounds like he wanted to keep her desperate. That’s a big red flag.

If however she was looking for some concessions regarding scheduling, well, that’s on her.

Consider it a lesson in keeping ones mouth closed, and/or professional life off social media.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

In Alberta you can be fired within the first 3 months without reason or notice. 3 months to two years an employer is required to give one week notice. After 2 years two weeks notice must be given. The notice gets longer the longer you’re employed.

BW

This is mostly correct.

In Alberta, with the employer providing the statutory notice and/or severance payment in lieu of notice, as described above - they don't need to provide any reason whatsoever to terminate your employment. None whatsoever.

There is no statutory obligation to ANY employee, regardless of length of service, in excess of a 10 week notice and/or severance in lieu of notice.

This period is graduated depending on the length of time the employee worked for the company. the shorter the service, the shorter the severance or notice period that is applied under the law.

I am unaware of ANY ruling in the cases of terminations that resulted in the law being overturned and all of a sudden a person getting re-hired or granted a severance over and and above the statutory requirement. None. It would, in essence, overturn the law - which, as far as I know, hasn't happened yet.

Despite the cries of "I'm going to the labour board" the law is the law and Alberta upholds the employers rights and clearly outlines their obligations (as noted above).

The law is clear.

https://www.alberta.ca/termination-pay.aspx

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

In Alberta you can be fired within the first 3 months without reason or notice. 3 months to two years an employer is required to give one week notice. After 2 years two weeks notice must be given. The notice gets longer the longer you’re employed.

BW

I've worked at several places in Alberta. Seen a lot of people fired and laid off. Never once did an employer give any notice. Most times people were escorted off the property, immediately. So I think you're dead wrong about that. Why would an employer want someone around for a couple more weeks after they were just told that they were terminated? Opportunity to sabotage. Severance is paid in lieu of notice when employees are laid off, but no severance is required if someone is fired for doing something wrong.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

I've worked at several places in Alberta. Seen a lot of people fired and laid off. Never once did an employer give any notice. Most times people were escorted off the property, immediately. So I think you're dead wrong about that. Why would an employer want someone around for a couple more weeks after they were just told that they were terminated? Opportunity to sabotage. Severance is paid in lieu of notice when employees are laid off, but no severance is required if someone is fired for doing something wrong.

You are correct to say, that if an employee is fired "for cause" there is no statutory requirement for notice and/or pay in lieu of notice.

In all cases, however, if the employer does not terminate you for cause, they are required to provide notice or severance pay.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by EZM

This is mostly correct.

In Alberta, with the employer providing the statutory notice and/or severance payment in lieu of notice, as described above - they don't need to provide any reason whatsoever to terminate your employment. None whatsoever.

There is no statutory obligation to ANY employee, regardless of length of service, in excess of a 10 week notice and/or severance in lieu of notice.

This period is graduated depending on the length of time the employee worked for the company. the shorter the service, the shorter the severance or notice period that is applied under the law.

I am unaware of ANY ruling in the cases of terminations that resulted in the law being overturned and all of a sudden a person getting re-hired or granted a severance over and and above the statutory requirement. None. It would, in essence, overturn the law - which, as far as I know, hasn't happened yet.

Despite the cries of "I'm going to the labour board" the law is the law and Alberta upholds the employers rights and clearly outlines their obligations (as noted above).

The law is clear.

https://www.alberta.ca/termination-pay.aspx

Thanks, EZM for that link. Clearly states that severance is required in lieu of notice.
Didn't expect for the kid to get hired back, but I can still boycott her ex-employer's business.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by EZM

You are correct to say, that if an employee is fired "for cause" there is no statutory requirement for notice and/or pay in lieu of notice.

In all cases, however, if the employer does not terminate you for cause, they are required to provide notice or severance pay.

So.. that was my original question... is taking a second job "cause" for termination?

[Dubious]

theres different exceptions for different industries payment in lieu may not be granted, would recommend having a look over https://www.alberta.ca/employment-standards.aspx and seeing what applies. in either case if the guy seems a bit sketchy it'll probably turn out for the best its never good to have to work for head case.

[buckbrush]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Well that’s my best guess anyway...either that or they didn’t want you to see that the grass was actually greener on the other side of the fence. Buck brush

I worded my first post wrong. I was still taking my scheduled days off to rest but just wanted to take a few weeks of my holiday days to fill in on a rig since they make you take them anyways.

The grass is greener part could have played a role since my boss is constantly thinking I am planning on jumping ship and has thought that for the last seven years.

I don't see taking a part time job as being an issue if you can still be fit for duty. Not much more of an issue than the guy who spends most of his night in the bar after work and shows up for work a few hours later.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

So.. that was my original question... is taking a second job "cause" for termination?

I've done my share of hiring and firing. I think you are missing the point, that there doesn't need to be a cause in the first 3 months of employment. Don't need to give a reason, whether the root cause may be legitimate, or not. After 3 months, rules change. And to answer the second part, yes, if having a second job negatively affects your performance at work, it can be grounds for dismissal, even after 3 month probation period. My guess is since the other employee returned, her services were not really required. Got rid of her before the 3 month deadline. Wouldn't be required to explain why. Probably not the type of company you would want her to invest her time in anyways, if that's the case.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

I've done my share of hiring and firing. I think you are missing the point, that there doesn't need to be a cause in the first 3 months of employment. Don't need to give a reason, whether the root cause may be legitimate, or not. After 3 months, rules change. And to answer the second part, yes, if having a second job negatively affects your performance at work, it can be grounds for dismissal, even after 3 month probation period.

So... you're saying an employer can fire someone for any reason...legitimate or not, provided they have worked less than 3 months. Like he just found out they were gay, or liberal voting, or the wrong race.

[raab]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

So.. that was my original question... is taking a second job "cause" for termination?

I dont think it would be unless the second job interfered with the job she was fired from.

Does her ROE say terminated or laid off?

[raab]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

So... you're saying an employer can fire someone for any reason...legitimate or not, provided they have worked less than 3 months. Like he just found out they were gay, or liberal voting, or the wrong race.

An employer cant fire you for what you listed, as its discrimination and would go against your human rights.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

So... you're saying an employer can fire someone for any reason...legitimate or not, provided they have worked less than 3 months. Like he just found out they were gay, or liberal voting, or the wrong race.

Yes. And don't have to say why they are fired.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by raab

An employer cant fire you for what you listed, as its discrimination and would go against your human rights.

If they told you why, and it was against your rights, then yes you may have a case. If they choose not to disclose why, even though you might suspect it, they are fully within the law to not disclose a reasoning as to why

[PartTimeHunter]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

I've worked at several places in Alberta. Seen a lot of people fired and laid off. Never once did an employer give any notice. Most times people were escorted off the property, immediately. So I think you're dead wrong about that. Why would an employer want someone around for a couple more weeks after they were just told that they were terminated? Opportunity to sabotage. Severance is paid in lieu of notice when employees are laid off, but no severance is required if someone is fired for doing something wrong.

Wrong. No severance is required if proper notice is given. You are right in thinking why would you want someone still working for you after being given notice of termination but that's the way it is written. The only way an employer can get around severance is terminating with just cause however that is defined.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

If they told you why, and it was against your rights, then yes you may have a case. If they choose not to disclose why, even though you might suspect it, they are fully within the law to not disclose a reasoning as to why

Bingo. If you're indeed right, you answered my question. Boycott is on.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

Bingo. If you're indeed right, you answered my question. Boycott is on.

I am very careful within the first 3 months to not get into details about dismissals. Even if it is due to blatant violations. Just say sorry, your services are no longer required here etc.. Please gather your things and leave the property.

If the employer made detailed, unfounded excuses/acknowledged some sort of rights infringement, then maybe you have some ground to stand on. But it would be easy for them to just say it was negatively affecting her performance etc etc. and you would be fighting an uphill battle. Just my 2 cents after years of dealing with this kind of thing.

[Ken H]

She can be fired for anything when she has not been working with the company for less than 3 months.

[raab]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

If they told you why, and it was against your rights, then yes you may have a case. If they choose not to disclose why, even though you might suspect it, they are fully within the law to not disclose a reasoning as to why

Depends when the company found out. For example say the company found out that an employee was gay for instance. The company then fired him a week later after finding out this news. This employee had never been talked to or told he needed to improve in any area, and felt he was performing as expected. Youd be looking at a mighty big law suit, and youd most likely lose. Now if the company knew the employee was gay when hired, it'd be hard to argue they were discriminating against him.

Edit: Also wanted to add if this employee had been told verbally and written a few times that his attendance record for example wasnt good enough. Then after a few warnings was fired for being late yet again. Then yes it'd be hard for the employee to make a human rights claim.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

If they told you why, and it was against your rights, then yes you may have a case. If they choose not to disclose why, even though you might suspect it, they are fully within the law to not disclose a reasoning as to why

Yes, my boss once hired a young woman, 2 1/2 months into the job she mentioned to the girls in the office that she just found out she was pregnant. Boss heard the girls talking about planning a baby shower for her, next morning when she showed up at work she was terminated, no reason given. Not a thing she could do about it. She was a good worker, very pleasant to work with.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by raab

Depends when the company found out. For example say the company found out a week before the employee was fired that they were gay for instance. This employee had never been talked to or told he needed to improve in any area, then was let go. Youd be looking at a mighty big law suit, and youd most likely lose. Now if the company knew the employee was gay when hired, it'd be hard to argue they were discriminating against him.

Wrong. We have a big legal team at my work. One of the biggest companies in Canada. I have been to full day courses about how to fire people. Gay or not, if that was the reasoning or not, no explanation needs to be given in the first 3 months. You don't want to acknowledge why, as an employer. To add, there are actually certain days to fire people on, to help prevent suicides. I know a fair bit about the process....