A common and regular concern faced by employers is the practice of resignation without notice by their employees and consequent disassociation without providing adequate time for due and proper handover. The question which the employers then face is, do we have the right to deduct amounts as payment in lieu of the unserved notice period from the outstanding wages of such employees?
An assessment as to the ability of an employer to deduct outstanding salary in lieu of unserved notice period is a mixed question of fact and law. First of all, it requires an assessment of whether the employee is employed in a corporate office or in a factory or in any other industrial establishment, as that determines the applicability of the relevant legislations. This assessment is also based on determination of the role and responsibility of the concerned employee, his/her salary, place of employment and several other related factors.
From April 2016 the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations created new workplace and residential obligations for building owners and those working with asbestos.
According to Work Safe New Zealand, asbestos is New Zealand’s number 1 killer in the workplace, accounting for 170 deaths each year from asbestos related diseases.
Employees sometimes think taking FMLA leave insulates them from an adverse employment action. Not so, as a couple of recent cases make clear.
Autumn Tibbs worked as the administrative assistant to the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois. The Chief Judge has responsibility for the administrative functions of the circuit. Judge Leslie Graves, the Presiding Judge of Sangamon County, supervised Tibbs.
In June 2012, General Mills announced it was terminating about 850 employees. General Mills offered them severance packages in exchange for signing release agreements. By the agreements’ terms, employees released General Mills from all claims relating to their terminations—including, specifically, ADEA claims. The agreements also stated that claims covered by the agreements would be individually arbitrated:
[I]n the event there is any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to the above release of claims, including, without limitation, any dispute about the validity or enforceability of the release or the assertion of any claim covered by the release, all such disputes or claims will be resolved exclusively through a final and binding arbitration on an individual basis and not in any form of class, collective, or representative proceeding.
Law360, New York (July 18, 2017, 9:21 PM EDT) — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Monday that employers can be held liable for disability discrimination if they fire an individual for using legally prescribed marijuana, an interpretation attorneys say could spread to other states and force employers to consider making exceptions to drug-free policies to accommodate workers’ medical needs.
On July 17, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) determined that Massachusetts law permits the off-site use of medical marijuana by handicapped employees, provided that this accommodation does not unduly burden the employer. THE FACTS Cristina Barbuto, the plaintiff, was hired by the defendant company, pending successfully passing a drug test mandated by company policy. The company fired Barbuto after she failed the company’s mandatory drug test due to the presence of marijuana. Barbuto explained that she used medical marijuana off-site at night to treat symptoms associated with Crohn’s Disease, to no avail.
In anticipation of the upcoming effective date (July 1, 2017) of the Cook County “Earned Sick Leave” Ordinance, the Cook Commission on Human Rights recently published the mandatory poster required to be posted by all employers covered by the Ordinance. A copy of the poster is available here.
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provides employees with a right to apply for flexible working arrangements if they meet certain criteria. Provided that an employer complies with the process for dealing with such requests, there is no direct mechanism under the FW Act for an employee to challenge their employer’s decision. But does that mean the reasons for a refusal are immune from scrutiny? A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) provides a reminder that compliance with the procedural requirements under section 65 isn’t always enough.
Can an employer enforce post-employment restrictive covenants (including agreements not to compete and not to solicit customers and employees) against an employee discharged without cause? According to two recent court decisions: yes and no.
The traditional view had been that employers could not enforce post-employment restrictive covenants against employees discharged without cause. In 2012, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hyde v. KLS Prof’l Advisors Group, LLC suggested that even when an employer discharged an employee without cause, the enforceability of a restrictive covenant should be analyzed under BDO Seidman’s reasonableness test which courts apply in determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants against employees who voluntarily resigned or were terminated for cause.