skip to content »

Updating contracts of employment

updating contracts of employment-29

The LAC held that this was not a matter which involved misconduct that entitled the employee to a hearing.

updating contracts of employment-86updating contracts of employment-55

The employer argued that the LC had erred by focusing exclusively on the points that were allocated to the candidates.We have over 30 years of experience helping employers and employees save costs, prevent litigation and secure rights and entitlements. So, now is a good time to clarify some of the rules surrounding Ontario employees’ entitlements to vacation time and vacation pay. [2017] 4 BLLR 358 (LAC), an employee was offered a position as a protection officer in terms of a three year fixed term contract subject to the outcome of a positive vetting process.The vetting process was also not in the hands of the employer and was material to his suitability for the position.As regards the employee’s argument that he was not given an opportunity to put his version across in respect of the negative information that was disclosed to the employer, Van Niekerk J commented that the employee had had the opportunity to put his version across by making a full disclosure at the time of his appointment.In circumstances where the employer has a rule that it appoints the candidate with the highest scorecard if the candidates are of the same race or gender, as was the case in these circumstances, then it must adhere to that rule.

If the candidate disputes the scores and complains about not being promoted then the candidate is required to show that the process and outcome was unfair.

It was held that a contract of employment that is subject to a condition is not in conflict with the LRA and it is a commercial reality.

Furthermore, the LAC did not agree with the employee that there should be a distinction between resolutive and suspensive conditions. s [2017] 4 BLLR 350 (LAC), an employee applied for an advertised post with the rank of captain.

He held that for an employment contract to provide that it is conditional on a positive vetting process and to provide for automatic termination should the outcome of the vetting process not be positive did not deprive an employee of the right to security of employment.

Furthermore, the employee had agreed to the condition in the employment contract and understood the consequences of a negative outcome to the vetting process.

The LAC held that employers must follow a fair procedure when considering candidates for promotions by adhering to the law and applying objective criteria.