Can an employee be fired for taking a second job?

[raab]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

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.

Lucky he didnt get taken to the cleaners by the human rights board.

[Bushleague]

I was once fired for much the same thing, and I had been at the job almost a year. Things got slow and I was getting sent home lots, I had a welding truck and sometimes managed to line up some sub contracting type work on the days I was sent home. I wasn't getting rich but the bills were getting paid. Apparently that was the equivalent of stealing the food right off my employer's table and I was let go with no warning or severance.

Now I don't know that things were terminated in a completely legitimate manner, but like hell am I going to hang around begging the pot licker that skidded me for scraps. As far as I can tell I was working for a self centered douche bag the whole time who didn't give a rats ass about whether I could keep a roof over my families head... honestly I feel that going my separate way before I wasted any more time with that particular company was a stroke of luck when you think about it... see what I'm getting at? Keep it classy, learn from the situation and move on.

[raab]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

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....

Well my sister specializes in OH&S and that's what she told me when I had a medical issue come up in a probation period. She also said if I was fired anytime in the 6 months to a year afterwards I could have a case. I called a human rights officer as well and she seem to side with what my sister was saying. The company would have a duty to accommodate me if I wasnt able to fill the job I had been hired for due to a medical disability.

Luckily, it wasnt an issue. But was interesting learning about the process as I figured I could be terminated without cause. If I was fired, it would be on the company to prove they didnt discriminate against me. Good luck doing that with no paper trail.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by raab

Well my sister specializes in OH&S and that's what she told me when I had a medical issue come up in a probation period. She also said if I was fired anytime in the 6 months to a year afterwards I could have a case. I called a human rights officer as well and she seem to side with what my sister was saying. The company would have a duty to accommodate me if I wasnt able to fill the job I had been hired for due to a medical disability.

Luckily, it wasnt an issue. But was interesting learning about the process as I figured I could be terminated without cause. If I was fired, it would be on the company to prove they didnt discriminate against me. Good luck doing that with no paper trail.

First three months is a whole different game. After 3 months, then it's a much bigger process, with lots of paperwork and having to prove a case for dismissal

[1899b]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

First three months is a whole different game. After 3 months, then it's a much bigger process, with lots of paperwork and having to prove a case for dismissal

Absolutely correct. After 90 days we must have just cause backed up by warnings and then write ups. We utilize the first 90 days to really screen and scrutinize a new employee and termination is much easier than after the 90 day window.

[raab]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

First three months is a whole different game. After 3 months, then it's a much bigger process, with lots of paperwork and having to prove a case for dismissal

I was at 2 months when the potential issue was found. There were some other factors with the employer as it is quite large, and Im in a safety sensitive position. But in saying that the same rules apply in regards to human rights all the way through employment.

A big company is actually more vulnerable to a human rights claim then a small one. As a small company could say that they had no other place to put the person or could simply say they werent needed.

If it were me and I did hiring/firing I would talk to my HR person before I did anything. Just to make sure I had all my ducks in a row, and no one was going to come back at me personally.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

It sounds like it was for the best unless this was a dream job. If the termination was for that fact alone and having hours cut as well, it is just ignorance on their part

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by raab

Lucky he didnt get taken to the cleaners by the human rights board.

She didn't go after him. Employers who do things like that tend to be not very nice people, are difficult to work for, they bank on people just throwing up their hands and walking away. It seems to work for them as they get away with things like this all the time. If you don't have a union there is not much you can do. Resorting to filing a complaint with Labour Relations is mostly a waste of time. Unless you document everything that transpired leading up to a firing, witnesses to back you up, resources, time and money to fight them then your wasting your time. These types of employers can generally walk all over their employees with impunity, they know it and do it all the time. There are no HR departments, worker associations or unions, it comes down to your word against theirs, the lowly employee of these smaller privately owned companies really have no one to stand up for them.

If on the rare occasion an employer of this ilk does get caught or are ruled against they just pay out what they should have in the first place so they are no further behind.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

She didn't go after him. Employers who do things like that tend to be not very nice people, are difficult to work for, they bank on people just throwing up their hands and walking away. It seems to work for them as they get away with things like this all the time. If you don't have a union there is not much you can do. Resorting to filing a complaint with Labour Relations is mostly a waste of time. Unless you document everything that transpired leading up to a firing, witnesses to back you up, resources, time and money to fight them then your wasting your time. These types of employers can generally walk all over their employees with impunity, they know it and do it all the time.

If on the rare occasion an employer of this ilk does get caught or are ruled against they just pay out what they should have in the first place so they are no further behind.

The human rights commission and the labour relations board are two different entities. From what I know of labour relations they take complaints seriously but have a hard time enforcing them. Also a lot of the time regarding severance it isnt worth the legal fight.

Now with the human rights commission, if you were let go due to something that falls under their umbrella. You could be looking at a far larger sum of money due to lost earnings. Not only the earnings lost while you were off, but also the potential earnings you could have made in the future. That's not to mention the fines against the company and its officers.

[Grizzly Adams]

Most cops and firemen I've known, have more than one job.

Grizz

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

First three months is a whole different game. After 3 months, then it's a much bigger process, with lots of paperwork and having to prove a case for dismissal

All they owe an employee is a week of severance for every year worked. You work 8 years, they can get rid of you with out any reason by simply paying 8! Weeks of pay.

[jmedical]

If a reason for firing was given IE you are fired because you work at ABC then no that was illegal. Source of income is protected grounds under human rights.

That being said if the employer has half a clue, your daughter would have been on probation and as previously mentioned. No reason needs to be given well on probation.

Here say from other employees does not matter as most wont put pen to paper. What was directly verbalized to her and written on her termination papers/hrs of work is what matters. If you feel it violated the top she may have a case with human rights. What you will actually get from said event who lnows?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by raab

Now with the human rights commission, if you were let go due to something that falls under their umbrella. You could be looking at a far larger sum of money due to lost earnings. Not only the earnings lost while you were off, but also the potential earnings you could have made in the future. That's not to mention the fines against the company and its officers.

Thats the thing, the worst repeat offending employers seem to fit the window where it is pointless to go after them through human rights as they are usually not worth much. They don't have HR departments or corporate officers. They rent business locations, they have trouble paying business bills, paying wages, they often shirk OHS standards and put employees in unsafe situations and conditions, their own business and personal lives are also a sea of debt and borderline insolvency. They have couple or three, maybe a dozen or 20 employees or more. Human rights adjudicates a settlement about all that will happen is they go bankrupt, the employee gets squat. There are thousands of businesses like this and there are many more thousands of people dependent on these outfits that frequently abuse them. Employees may know there are channels to to take their employers to task when they have been wronged, they also know it is pretty much futile, you can't get blood out of a stone. People just walk away, employer gets away with it. Happens all the time.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Thats the thing, the worst repeat offending employers seem to fit the window where it is pointless to go after them through human rights as they are usually not worth much. They don't have HR departments or corporate officers. They rent business locations, they have trouble paying business bills, paying wages, they often shirk OHS standards and put employees in unsafe situations and conditions, their own business and personal lives are also a sea of debt and borderline insolvency. They have couple or three, maybe a dozen or 20 employees or more. Human rights adjudicates a settlement about all that will happen is they go bankrupt, the employee gets squat. There are thousands of businesses like this and there are many more thousands of people dependent on these outfits that frequently abuse them. Employees may know there are channels to to take their employers to task when they have been wronged, they also know it is pretty much futile, you can't get blood out of a stone. People just walk away, employer gets away with it. Happens all the time.

The kind of employer you're talking about is living a miserable existance and isn't really getting anything for free. He would be struggling constantly just to fill positions as the word gets around what he's like to work for. You have to lie in the bed you make.

[Rastus]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

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.

And "YOU" are one person who buys what? one item costing $10.00. You will be missed.

[58thecat]

Now let's hear the employers side.....

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

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....

Yep. Let a person go recently while under probation and the mantra was 'sorry, it's just not working out'. This person called a number of folks in management demanding an explanation and we all had to be very unified in our generic response. Even a few weeks later we were getting calls. The person was fishing to try to get us to slip something out that they could use in a complaint.

The thing is, we have a relatively small industry here, and the best thing would be for the person to just accept that it wasn't a good fit and move on. Instead the person is just digging themselves a hole...

[graybeard]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Most cops and firemen I've known, have more than one job.

Grizz

True, however there are clear stipulations as to what you cannot do....Jobs that clearly cross the line of being a; conflict of interest.

[Dynamic]

I don’t know the full circumstances but it sounds like your daughter dodged a bullet. She will find a better job with a more understanding manager. When you work with managers who pull shady stuff like that it is almost always a sign of incompetence on their part.

[Okotok]

When done properly, an offer will clearly state the 3 month probationary period and the fact that either party can end their relationship at anytime during that period without notice or reason.

An employment agreement is the best way to cover conditions of employment after the expiration of the probationary period. My company does not allow "moonlighting" with a competing industry or where it would affect their ability to properly and safely perform their job. A proper employment agreement will also define common law and requirements for notice by the employer or employee in the event of termination with cause or without cause. As stated previously, the notice period or pay in lieu of notice, increases with the length of time the person has been employed. Severance pay is also defined based on precedents in common law and varies dependent on a number of variables including position within the company, the probability of the person securing a similar position (particularly senior positions) etc.

Notice is not required in such industries as construction or seasonal work for hourly workers in Alberta.

[SlightlyDistracting]

Originally Posted by raab

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

And there it is!!!
Human rights because you got let go from a job
What rock did you crawl out from under?

[raab]

Originally Posted by SlightlyDistracting

And there it is!!!
Human rights because you got let go from a job
What rock did you crawl out from under?

So you think its alright for an employer to fire someone because they got cancer in the first 3 months theyve been employed with them? Or they got diagnosed with another disease they didnt know about like MS?

[EZM]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

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

It can be in some cases, or may or may not apply HOWEVER that's completely irrelevant in your case, as no cause is required, nor is any severance for any employee with less than 90 days service.

[tirebob]

If she took a second job that is in conflict with her primary job, I could see justification in being fired. Say a guy works for me in sales and then goes and works weekends at another business doing the same thing, they cold be funneling work away from me to another place and that is not good. But if they worked for me selling tires and took a part time job making bread, well there is zero conflict there.

[EZM]

I'm getting a real kick out of all the "human rights labour board" banter here ..... if a terminated employee decides to file a complaint with employment standards (labour board) they rule on ONLY weather or not proper notice and/or severance was applied - that's it, that's all. Nothing more.

A human rights complaint, say someone terminated (based on discrimination), is a civil case.

The labour board has zero training, expertise and/or authority to make any ruling unless the case is heard in a court of law .......... NONE .......... ZERO that's simply not the way the actual REAL LIFE LAW works ..... sorry guys.

A case like this would require the burden of proof of evidence and I'm 100% sure, using the examples given earlier in this thread, their lawyer (or person going to court to represent the company) isn't going to say "yeah, we fired him because we found out he was gay" .... come on, really?? That isn't going to happen.

On the other hand, if an employee had evidence, witness statements, etc.. supporting some sort of discrimination - and the company was run by a dirt bag bigot - then they deserve what they get in court. Again, in a civil case and nothing to do with the labour board.

These are rare as golden unicorns.

[bobtodrick]

If it's a conflict of interest...most definitely.
For example (this from a personal experience from a family member)...person was working for London Drugs full time. Took a part time job at Shoppers. Was told if they continued to work there they would be terminated. What's to stop the person from giving management at Shoppers (or vice versa) all the scoop on upcoming sales and promotions?

[raab]

Originally Posted by EZM

I'm getting a real kick out of all the "human rights labour board" banter here ..... if a terminated employee decides to file a complaint with employment standards (labour board) they rule on ONLY weather or not proper notice and/or severance was applied - that's it, that's all. Nothing more.

A human rights complaint, say someone terminated (based on discrimination), is a civil case.

The labour board has zero training, expertise and/or authority to make any ruling unless the case is heard in a court of law .......... NONE .......... ZERO that's simply not the way the actual REAL LIFE LAW works ..... sorry guys.

A case like this would require the burden of proof of evidence and I'm 100% sure, using the examples given earlier in this thread, their lawyer (or person going to court to represent the company) isn't going to say "yeah, we fired him because we found out he was gay" .... come on, really?? That isn't going to happen.

On the other hand, if an employee had evidence, witness statements, etc.. supporting some sort of discrimination - and the company was run by a dirt bag bigot - then they deserve what they get in court. Again, in a civil case and nothing to do with the labour board.

These are rare as golden unicorns.

It's both a civil and criminal case depending what part of the act has been violated. Organizations can be hit with a 50,000 dollar fine under the Canada Human Rights Act. Then the employee can also take up a civil case against the company for both lost wages, and their potential earnings in the future. This is usually done at a tribunal.

It's a big deal, and the reason a lot of companies jump through several hoops before firing someone. Also the reason they have a good paper trail regarding substandard performance issues.

In the above example if your companies lawyer was called into court. The lawyer will be asked by the judge why the employee was terminated? If the lawyer can not produce another viable option. Then it could be inferred that the employee was discriminated against due to new information that was made available during the 3 month probation period.

Also I agree the Labour board, and Alberta Human Rights Commission are two different entities and shouldnt be confused.

[raab]

Here's the key information from the Alberta Human Rights Act with regards to secondary employment.


(b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment
or any term or condition of employment,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender
identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability,
age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income,
family status or sexual orientation of that person or of any other
person.

The Canadian Human Rights Act doesnt sight source of income. So if she worked in a federally regulated industry she might not have a case.


In saying that. Why would she want to work for an employer who would pull this type of thing? Its much better for her to move to a company that values her, and let everyone know how she was treated by that employer.(Easy to do now with Indeed, and Google reviews) Both the job market and consumer market can do far more damage to a crappy employer then any government organization can. The Human Rights Commission IMO should only be used by people who have no other options.

Like say a person who was diagnosed with cancer, and are being terminated before their benefits kick in to save the employer some money on insurance fees. That is a very crappy employer, and not someone I would personally want to do business with.

[BlackHeart]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

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.

Welllllll............not that I am condoning what he did but here is the flipside to all those that are whooping up filing a claim against him with the Human Rights Commission.

It is not uncommon to have women decide they are going to get pregnant start their family, so while the birth control has been shelved, they now start looking for work...any work....and take the job knowing full well they will not be there long. All with the plan to be able to claim EI maternity benefits.

I know of one case where 3 kids later, 3 EI funded maternity leaves later, one more year of intentional insufferable job performance, she gets "laid off" and claims her forth year of benefits. Pretty good gig. Work for 4 years intermitantly and get paid for 8.

Mean while the employer has to keep hiring 1yr temporary staff to cover her leaves, make sure her job is available for her to return to and deal with the constant issues of training new 1 yr temps and bring her back up to speed on what has occurred/changed while she was gone. Having to work around her position, living with an on again, off again employee for 7 years. And with zero ability to get rid of her for poor performance as she's pregnant with again with 3 months of returning....so any action against her is going to get him run up the pole with AHRC.

So EVEN though what he did may not be liked, can't say I blame him with the current laws and entitlements. Many employer have voiced the concern that our current maternity parental benefit combo of 50 weeks was going to cause some to avoid hiring women who may appear ready to start families.

AND......Even though women have no obligation to inform their prospective employer that they plan on getting pregnant or are already pregnant, it is manipulative and deceptive to take a position knowing fully well your not going to be there for long and only for one real purpose...to qualify for the EI benefits. And will cost your new employer in training you and then each of your temp replacements.

[raab]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Welllllll............not that I am condoning what he did but here is the flipside to all those that are whooping up filing a claim against him with the Human Rights Commission.

It is not uncommon to have women decide they are going to get pregnant start their family, so while the birth control has been shelved, they now start looking for work...any work....and take the job knowing full well they will not be there long. All with the plan to be able to claim EI maternity benefits.

I know of one case where 3 kids later, 3 EI funded maternity leaves later, one more year of intentional insufferable job performance, she gets "laid off" and claims her forth year of benefits. Pretty good gig. Work for 4 years intermitantly and get paid for 8.

Mean while the employer has to keep hiring 1yr temporary staff to cover her leaves, make sure her job is available for her to return to and deal with the constant issues of training new 1 yr temps and bring her back up to speed on what has occurred/changed while she was gone. Having to work around her position, living with an on again, off again employee for 7 years. And with zero ability to get rid of her for poor performance as she's pregnant with again with 3 months of returning....so any action against her is going to get him run up the pole with AHRC.

So EVEN though what he did may not be liked, can't say I blame him with the current laws and entitlements. Many employer have voiced the concern that our current maternity parental benefit combo of 50 weeks was going to cause some to avoid hiring women who may appear ready to start families.

AND......Even though women have no obligation to inform their prospective employer that they plan on getting pregnant or are already pregnant, it is manipulative and deceptive to take a position knowing fully well your not going to be there for long and only for one real purpose...to qualify for the EI benefits. And will cost your new employer in training you and then each of your temp replacements.

Well thats quite a negative view of the situation. I would look at it like these temp positions give an opportunity for new grads to gain experience. It also gives the company the opportunity to try out several people and see who is a good fit. Those that are good the company will find a way to keep provided they're not unionized.(A lot of Unions force companies to hire based on seniority. Meaning they lose out on good young talent to companies that can hire based off merit)

Eventually the lady in question will return to her job and she'll stay and most likely be a good employee for several years after having kids. This is almost guaranteed as kids arent cheap, and the family will most likely need two incomes to support it. If the family doesnt need two incomes, the lady in question will resign her position and the last temp can be turned into a full time position. I really dont see it as a bad situation for a company besides the training being provided to the new hires. Although I think a year long try out is worth a substantial amount to a prospective employer.

Now if you are arguing about the EI system. Then yes I'd agree we should get rid of it. There's no reason we should be forced to pay into EI. Each individual in Canada should be able to go to a private insurance company and get their own EI that is based on their needs. Ive been unemployed for 3 months in roughly my 20 years of working. My EI fees through a private provider would be substantially lower then someone like the women you described above. There's also no reason the general public should have to subsidize the lady above for her choice of having a family.