So, it’s been a while. For a period I was posting at least once a week – but, it seems the more content I have to post, the busier I get. When I have free time, I never have anything good to write about. Well, let’s get back to it, and see how things go.

This is not going to be a controversial post. It’s simply going to be one of those hmmmmm posts.

I always enjoying being put into new situations, fixing problems and helping others. I thrive on adversity and stare problems into submission. I love to learn and delve into new areas of HR I have never experienced before – and believe me, I never used to think HR was so broad and diverse – but over a decade later, I am still learning and doing new things every single seek! Who’dve known?

The mining industry is definitely one that brings many new opportunities to HR professionals. I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined I would be running a hotel! Yes, that’s right a hotel. (Caveat – while I don’t ACTUALLY run it, I have be integral in the operation of the company motel from acquision through to opening and setting up reservations – the site HR manager essentially has taken on responsibility of ensuring the motel operation runs efficiently).

Let me back up… We operate mines in northern Ontario. While we are not a true mining camp, we operate in areas that have scarce housing and rental apartments. In a region that is already severely tapped out for talent and extremely competitive, it is even more challenging to attract people into the area when there is no housing available! So when a local 11 room motel came on the market, myself and the site HR Manager saw an opportunity!

From developing the business case and creating an expense sheet to formulating an ROI proposal, navigating the legal paperwork, hiring cleaning staff, implementing an online reservation system to decorating, installing locks and drafting rental agreements – the HR team has been at the forefront of making the employee residence project come to life. We have even gone as far as to ensure tax compliance and setup payroll deductions as an option for payment of rent.

What is my point? Sometimes you have to get creative. Sometimes you need to step out of your comfort zone. And, sometimes you have to do things that you never fathomed would fall into an HR function.

The other part of this opportunity is that we were able to take advantage of a home attached to the property and convert it into a corporate house for out of town corporate employees temporarily visiting the area. The house just “opened for business” and it has been a hit. It is more comfortable than a hotel room – we can prepare healthier meals in the kitchen than we get eating out – it is closer to the mine than any other motel – we can spend additional time with other members of the team. The other benefit – we save a bundle on travel expenses – a direct financial savings for the company!

So HR, rise to the occasion, get out there and identify ways that you can add value to the bussines, have an impact, and be a financial asset not an overhead liability! Odds are, like me, you’ll learn a lot in the process.

Well, it’s done.  The 2010 HRPA annual conference & tradeshow. This is my fist full conference attendance in probably 8 years, and while I dropped in and out past years, I cannot say as any of the quality of sessions I saw in those years could cumulatively top what I saw this year.

First and foremost, Doug Keeley of Mark of a Leader, as the MC, did an awesome job being the glue for the event. Not only did he MC, but he brought interesting stories, motivated everyone, and got a few laughs along the way too. Doug is a very talented guy. Other keynotes included Jeff Tobe, Ali Velshi, Nick Bontis and a few others – all were very impressive.

From a session standpoint, I found myself mostly in compensation and legal sessions – the practical side of me took over. And, while I heard great things about other session on perfecting your powerpoint, or being creative, or understanding generation Y – I was not disappointed with any of the session presenters.

Finally, the trade show floor – while I was not in search of many services at this point this year – was very inclusive and brough some quality services to the show. The sponsors did a great job in presenting the keynotes and providing access to them for autographs or follow up after their presentations.

All in all a great show, and I hope the HRPA can keep it up for 2011 now that they have set the bar!

Session notes are online on the HRPA conference site until middle of February, so if you have not got yours yet, make sure you do.

So, on December 9th this year Bill 168, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters, passed Royal Assent. While there are numerous places you can get your hands directly on the most recent copy of the Bill with its many stages of changes, and while there are many places you can get your hands on a summary of the Bill – I thought I would just cover off on some highlights and share some thoughts and opinions.

The Bill, essentially, looks to attempt to make workplaces safer through a number of measures aimed at reducing violence in the workplace. It basically is to take the foundations of already existing harassment & discrimination legislation and workplace policies to a new level by incorporating new legislation and thereby having employers create new policies from an Occupational Health and Safety perspective.

This then introduces remedies to workers such as the right to refuse work where he/she feels the work is unsafe as a result of working in proximity of an individual who may be prone to violence or have displayed a violent past. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Is there room here for abuse of the right to refuse work? Probably. But, that’s just the start. The legislation lays out precautions employers must take, including the requirement to create workplace violence policies, procedures for dealing with behaviour issues as as well as investigations. It requires the posting of said policies in conspicuous places and a much higher level of diligence in monitoring the workplace for behaviour issues.

Oh, and let’s not forget the employer’s obligation to disclose information about the violent past of a worker to other workers who may have to work with or near the “violent worker”. How much should be disclosed? Good question. While the act does have specific language on this – it basically says that enough information, including personal information, should be disclosed to make the other workers aware of the risk, but not to disclose too much personal information. With 6 months to go until the Act becomes law in June of 2010, I can already hear the personal defamation lawyers salivating and licking their chops. Maybe a good time to start inserting clauses in offer letters to gain consent for disclosure of certain personal information to other employees as a condition of employment. (seriously)

While I am not against Bill 168 and its changes, I do find it very progressive and that it introduces a lot of legal grey areas that must be addressed very quickly and very thoroughly.

I am beginning to think that 2009 has been the “Year of Legislation” for HR professionals. Between Bill 139 with amendments to the ESA, Bill 168 as described above, and pending changes to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act – I am starting to feel more and more like a lawyer of sorts.

OK – One last honourable mention here as far as end of year legal updates goes. About 3 weeks ago, the RCMP removed the right for police departments to access the national criminal database on behalf of 3rd party vendors acting for employers to obtain criminal background checks (apparently in line with standing directives that they had been lenient on in the past, from what I understand). After much backlash, the RCMP apparently did not do a full 180 degree turn on the matter, but maybe a 30 degree  redirect. They decided to allow the checks to be done, but only for police departments to disclose a “clear” or “not clear” on the reports released to the 3rd party vendors, and hence, employers.

So, a couple of issues here. First and foremost – how are employers expected to meet obligations under Bill 168 in relation to investigation and disclosure of risks of violence by employees when access to Criminal Records has been fundamentally blocked. In trying to prevent discriminatory practices, I believe that these actions have made matters worse. While one employer may have hired someone with a theft charge but not a bad driving record, another employer may not care about the theft charge so long as the driving record is clear for a position which requires use of a company vehicle. While I am oversimplifying for demonstrative purposes here – I’m sure you get the point. Now the employers will only get “unclear” and both may decide not to hire, as they do not know the full extent of the history.

An alternate solution may be to have candidates provide their own check. Ummmm, maybe not. Employers were able to obtain them in typically 3 – 5 days. The average individual has to wait about 3 – 6 weeks, pay about $30 – and then, there is not guarantee to an employer that having passed through the hands of the applicant, that the document has not been altered in any way.

These changes are not only affecting employers, but will have a negative impact on not-for-profit and volunteer organizations and their ability to effectively sreen individuals who will be working with “at risk” groups.

We’re just going to have to wait this one out. However, if you have been affected by this, I am curious to hear from you and how you have mitigated your hiring risks through other solutions. Please either comment or write me directly, as this matter is not getting anywhere near the amount of attention it should be.

While I currently am not a staffing agency, am not employed as a contractor to a staffing agency, and do not use temporary help (not at present anyways), I am compelled to post this quick update just in case you have not been paying attention.

Back on May 6 of 2009, Bill 139 passed royal assent in the legislative Assembly of Ontario. You may recall my December 2008 post speaking about the composition of Bill 139 to Amend the Ontario Employment Standards Act as it pertains to the treatment of temporary workers employed by agencies, among other things. Well, as planned, it is now 6 months later and the Bill is officially in force. Are you ready?

The impacts, or rather additional questions about the interpretation of the legislation is outlined quite well in an ERE article on the subject from a couple of months ago.

Some of the biggest “issues” with the legislation deal with how agency workers on assignments are notified of terminating assignments and their rights upon the termination of those assignments. If nothing else, it stands to create much more administration for agencies managing the temporary employees, and likely the addition of costs passed along to clients. Oh, and I bet there is going to be much future discussion on what constitutes an employee versus a temporary employee vs a contractor (age old battle here of what passes the muster of the 4 indicators as set out by the government to differentiate an independent contractor from a contract employee).

Here is a copy of Bill 139 – An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Here is a copy of Regulation 398/09 – Terms and Conditions of Employment In Defined Industries : Temporary Help Agency Industry

It is interesting to note, and probably worth doing reading on Bill 212 (in second reading and not yet law) regarding mass terminations, and will affect the application (in a positive way) of the impacts of Bill 139 with the Regulation 398/09 amendments. The employment aspects of Bill 212 can be found in Schedule 20.

Happy reading and planning!

So, this is an interesting court decision with an article from the National Post. What floors me is not so much the case itself or the decision – but the first three comments that were posted by readers with I’m sure many to follow by the time you read this in my blog. While I understand the plight of the employer, I also get the human aspect of what the employee is facing and am absoluetly on board with the human rights aspects of this case. Read the article:

Ontario salon fined $35,000 for firing pregnant employee

Posted: October 30, 2009, 11:42 AM by Gillian Grace

A Mississauga salon that canned a pregnant employee 15 minutes into her first shift has been ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to cough up $35,000 and start an “accommodation of pregnant employees program” (step No. 1: don’t fire them).

Jessica Maciel was four months pregnant when she interviewed for a position at Nino D’Arena salon. Whether or not a prospective new hire is about to start shopping in the maternity section is, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code, none of her boss’s business. So Maciel kept mum about her status, fearing — apparently rightfully so — that she wouldn’t get the job.

As Canwest News Service reports, “Jessica Maciel, 20, will receive $15,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity and feelings and $20,000 in lost wages and maternity benefits from the owner of two related hair salons, the tribunal ruled this week, finding Maciel’s pregnancy was ‘likely the only factor’ in her firing.”

Maciel’s lawyer Kate Sellar had this to say, “This story is typical and it shouldn’t be,” … “It’s illegal to fire workers because they are pregnant. Our centre receives 40 calls a week from women who are in a similar situation.” Most of the calls come from women who are fired when their employer learns they are pregnant. Others are from women terminated while on maternity leave or returning back to work.”

Here’s the first 3 comments:

by Fred_001

Oct 30 2009
1:10 PM

Listen, sweetheart, this is a business – actually, my private business, my personal private property, that I built with my own two hands – who I invite into it to work is just much my private affair as who you invite into your personal home.

It’s NOT a community services program for mothers-to-be to rack up the hours they need to go on maternity UI in a few months.  It costs me money, time, and disruption to advertise, interview, hire, train and evaluate new staff.  You’re gonna use me for a few months to get your UI hours, spend the last couple of those bellyaching about your sore back and you’re late again because of morning sickness and on and on…then throw my investment in you out the window, put me through all that again to hire a temporary replacement for you, expecting me to juggle business and temps in order to keep this job open for you – then you’ll wait until the last minute of your preggers leave to inform me that you’re never coming back, wasting my investment in you and leaving me in the lurch after all that……

Why don’t you just live with the life choice you made, and leave me to hire a full-time permanent employee that won’t ruin me.  Oh, I know why, ’cause we live in a communist state…

by crocodile dundee

Oct 30 2009
2:06 PM

Just another reason to disband this outrageous HRC and fire the nitwits that are employed by it.

So, a woman does not have to inform the employer she is pregnant when interviewing yet on the first day of employment can tell the same employer she is pregnant and wants her maternity benefits. Nice gig. Of course, the beanbrains at the HRC, never having to actually run a business, think small businesses are just flush with cash and can afford to spend money hiring two people.

And where do they get off telling the business to start up a program for accomodation of pregnant employees? Tell them to shove it!!

Waiting to hear from all the HRC supporters who say that their decisions are not costly.

by rossbcan

Oct 30 2009
2:54 PM

Whether or not the law states “you don’t have to disclose info to potential employers such as being preggers”, a crime is being committed. It is called fraud of non disclosure and places the employer in a moral hazard (trap) position, where the negative consequences of hiring choice cannot be determined.

An employment contract was entered into without full material disclosure so both parties (employer / employee) can determine whether it is in their MUTUAL interests to form an agreement (contract) for mutual self-interest. Not to mention destruction of trust, required for working together.

This “law” should be thrown out, as illegal.

But, it won’t and unemployed females will realize that repeating this farce, spilling the preggers beans at the opportune time and getting fired (and getting a lawyer to extort a settlement on this precedent) or, getting all the entitlement perks at employers expense is a good gig.

Employers will wise up and, for unprovable reasons, fail to hire females who may be at risk of becoming pregnant, on the employers dime. Up goes female unemployment (and whining).

This of course, will be cast as an outrageous social injustice and, we will have female “affirmative action”.

In fact, is this not the meaning of Iggy’s “female empowerment” agenda?

Luckily, all of this is crumbling, We will soon have no economic resources to subsidize unproductive entitlements, at others expense.

If you make a choice (such as having children), the consequences and costs are FULLY yours. Choose carefully.

There you have it. I could comment on this at so many different levels, but for me it really comes down to ethics and fairness. There are so many other ways the salon could have dealt with the “issue” and they chose what is probably the least ethical and compassioate one. And, obviously did not consult an attorney, or even consult the internet for Employment Standards information prior to taking action. Let this be a lesson to you all to have some compassion for your fellow humans, or at the very least, be legislatively compliant.

OK, enough said. Unleash your wrath on me.

After I wrote my last entry with my own little whimsical (but only half-heartedly.. the other half was dead serious) disclaimer, I also had a commentor with a discclaimer. My e-mail signature has a disclaimer. My fax covers have disclaimers, and every offer letter, NDA, policy booklet and so on have disclaimers.

My point?

While I initially got into HR for other reasons, I find myself getting entrenched more and more in legal matters. Some days I feel more like a lawyer than an HR professional. I need to know the Labour Relations Act, the Occupational Health & Safety Act, the Employment Standards Act (often in several difference provinces), the Canada Labout Code, the Quebec Civil code, pension legislation & requirements, and the list goes on.

What other professions (aside from law) require such a vast knowledge base of such a large and diverse set of legal standards? Well, not many anyways.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy every moment of it. Heck, I even thought for a short period of time about becoming a lawyer – but for various reasons, did not pursue that field as an area of expertise. Now, here I set, part strategist, part business professional, amateur accountant and semi-practising legal wrangler.

Kids, if you want to excel in your HR career and run with the big dogs, start reading up on your case law and snuggling up with those Acts & Statutes at night.

As many of you who follow my blog will know, I watch the site stats and will often write about topics that appear in the search terms – especially where particular searches land people on blog entries which may not entirely cover the topic searched. While I don’t believe that the processing of declining or refusing an offer of employment is all that exciting, I am surprised at the number of searches that have landed on my site since I wrote an entry comparing the Godfather movies to aspects of networking. Specifically, the searches picked up on some of the terms related to “making an offer you cannot refuse”.

While I believe the searches are focusing on people looking to advise on formally turning a company down, I believe the opposite may be true as well – small companies looking to ensure that all the T’s are crossed when an offer is refused, or perceived to have been refused.

Well, in my time I cannot say I have seen it all, but I have seen a lot. I have always been amazed when candidates go through a recruiting process to be presented with an offer, only to not show up on the first day of work. Quite frankly, the simple act of a formal letter of decline (or even a courtesy phone call) would go a long way in not buring any bridges for the future. I would be likely to re-consider for hire someone who declined an offer in advance, or accepted and later declined formally, rather that what is essentially job abandonment.

What to do? From an employee or candidate perspective, when you receive that offer to consider but decide to accept another or even a counter offer from your current employer, a simple phone call to the recruiter to explain the situation would be nice. However, to go one step further, since the potential employer took the time to make you a legal formal letter of offer, it would be ideal for you to reciprocate with a formal letter declining the offer. Simply create a letterhead, use the current date, reference the date of the offer and a few brief pertinent offer points (position, company name, etc) and indicate in the letter that at that you you respectfully decline the offer as presented, that it is your final decision, that you harbour no prejudice towards the company, and that you would like the opportunity to be considered in the future should circumstances change.

You can perhaps expect the company, whether you contacted them verbally or by written letter, to want to know why you are declining, and perhaps even sweeten the original offer (especially if they deemed you a top or had to find candidate) – but assuming that your final decision is made, and you communicate that effectively and respectfully, you likely will not have burned that bridge for future consideration with that company.

From an employer perspective, there are a number of things you can do to make sure first off, that your offers are accepted, and secondly, that you don’t create future legal problems for yourself. (Note, these are simply my ramblings and are not to be construed as legal advice – go find yourself a lawyer for legal advice)

Working towards ultimate acceptance – as a recruiter or prospective employer you should be probing your candidates all the way through a recruitment process to understand their “hot buttons”. What is important? Salary, flexible hours, vacation time, awesome manager, corporate culture, office location, flexible benefits, conferences/seminars, training & development, an office vs a cube, interesting projects, etc? Pay attention to subtle cues dropped regarding interests or aspects of prior employment that the candidate is very passionate about. Try to accommodate as many wants as possible in writing in that first offer you make – if it is cultural or training type items that are important, make sure you speak to the candidate while presenting the offer and the “sales pitch”. And yes, in many cases, attracting potential employees to your company often parallels that of product/service sales. You need to be aware that the candidate is assessing you, your company and the behaviours of you and your interviewers all through the recruitment process. Treat your candidates how you would like to be treated if you were on their side. Now, I could go on for hours talking about tips for improving recruitment processes and the candidate experience, but we’ll save that for another day. The take away here… Know what your prospective employee is looking for so that you can structure an offer of employment that will not be refused.

One quick final note on the legal stuff – especially for all you smaller employers out there. Create an offer letter template and have a lawyer review it. You need to make sure that you adequately cover off on several key points in an offer, and in a way that will not turn off your prospective employees. Make sure that you put an expiry date in the offer. (What if the employee never accepted within a week or two and you moved on to another candidate, only to have the first person come back after 3 weeks and accept?) While you might be able to make the case for a reasonable amount of time passing – you likely don’t want to get into a situation where you formally have to revoke one offer of employment or the other.

That’s all I have to say for now. Just scratched the surface – I know. Hopefully all offers are mutually accepted, but I know that is not reality. So, employers and candidates… Respect each other and treat every relationship as though you may be doing business together again in the future. Who knows – you may not have a future employment relationship, but rather a future commercial product/sales/service based partnership.

So, I happened on over the the HRPA site today to get my exam results. (Yay… I passed the NPPA and have my CHRP designation now) And, what did I see splashed right at the top of the main page?

“HRPA is pleased to announce the Senior Human Resources Professional (SHRP) designation–a new HR designation reserved for senior HR executives that have made significant impact on their organizations and the profession.”

Well, if you recall back in June, I had an entry about the recent changes to the CHRP designation process and some comments that followed. In one of my comment responses I spoke about the following:

“If you recall back in the day, I believe that the HRPAO officially used the CHRM and the CHRP to signify varying stages of completion on the certification process. Perhaps the solution would be to have more than one recognized level of certification where the CHRP is the top tier indicating proficiencies in knowledge AND experience, while there is one or two levels below (perhaps a CHRM) that might indicate technical competence, but without the experiential component.”

What a great idea. While I was a little off in the titling of each of the levels, the basic concpt is there. This, however, does not change the fact that the CHRP is going back to experiential and now there is the new gold seal approved SHRP for well season and experience true HR leaders.

Guess that begs the question then… Should there be 3 levels? CHRM for theoretical knowledge (test based and maybe without the BA requirement), CHRP for experienced mid-level HR practitioners (perhaps having the CHRM plus the re-introduced experiential process) and the SHRP for the well-respected elite of HR (which, I do think is a great way to recognize, reward and respect those who have worked hard to further themselves, their companies and the profession).

While represented by different granting bodies, I have mentioned before that the financial profession has CGA, CMA and CAs. (pretty much in that ranking from lowest to highest) Why not us?

Guess I’ll dust off that crystal ball again and see what the future holds? Or, maybe I should go out now into the world with my fancy new CHRP designation and become involved with the people who make the decisions. Do I get re-cert points for doing that?

Back again… However, it is interesting that I have probably had more people start to follow my blog in my absence that I think I had sign up while I was actively posting. Or, maybe I’ve just been watching it more. In any case, now that I have started at my new company and am “back in the game” again, I am hoping to get back on top of current issues and keep the posts coming.

Top of mind for me right now is the flip flop that that HRPA is doing regarding practical qualifications for the CHRP designation. It is top of mind for me because I just wrote the May 2009 NPPA then read shortly after that the HRPA, after two more NPPA sittings, will be reverting back to the experience related practical requirement. While I understand that as a provincial professional body the HRPA went to the NPPA for national standardization, I would assume over the short time that the examination was in place, that a lot of controversy was raised regarding the validity of the designation based entirely on written examinations.

While in theory, the NPPA exam is based on practical experience, it is possible to write and pass that component having only studied and never held a position in a human resources function. So, let the debate begin… I’ve been in some recent forums dedicating bandwidth to both sides of this topic and there are two leading conversations happening – first, the experienced professionals agreeing with the move back to a practical assessment of professional experience; and, second, generally more junior individuals now clamouring to write one of the next two NPPA sittings to get the certification before an experiential requirement comes back into effect.

From a designation perspective, and providing a professional standard that employers and non-HR professionals can have confidence in, I think I lean more towards an assessed experiential requirement versus the written NPPA exam. While I understand the desire for individuals entering the HR professional to get a designation behind his/her name, I don’t think that in the long run the profession is gaining any ground by so easily granting designations without experience. Would you want a surgeon that has only studied textbooks and has not done internships and residencies? Would you want an engineer to design our skyscrapers when he/she does not have practical experience? What about chartered accountants having experience, your real estate lawyer having written prior contracts or the person who wired your house having gone through an apprenticeship program? I believe that the reputation of certified HR professionals have a standard to live up to and an obligation to employers to have a certain experience base that comes along with the designation. That is not to say that HR professionals without a designation are not valuable, but rather that a minimum of required professional experience be shown to ensure certified professionals bring the level of confidence that one would have of a doctor, a CA or a lawyer.

So… As the HRPA reintroduces the practical requirement to the CHRP, and I spew my comments and opinions above, let’s start the discussion on practical versus written.

So I am back now, this second week of April, without excuses. I should have written more since my last update, but did not. I now have so much more to write about and update you on.

First and foremost, I have spent the past couple of weeks working with the executives at my company and finalizing the sale of the corporation. It was just the end of last week that we “handed over the keys”, as they say. While I will reserve the right to write more on my experiences around the transaction later, it has been, suffice to say, a roller coaster experience filled with great learning and personal triumphs. It is always challenging to write this HR blog and want to share experiences without breaching confidentiality, but there will be key HR learnings that I will be able to and will continue to share in the coming days.

A notable item in the news since my last update has been the increase to minimum wage in Ontario last Tuesday to $9.50/hr (for regular adult wages). While this is great for employees, families and low income earners, it likely has little effect on a lot of corporate entities. However, the timing is likely also extremely challenging and stressful for a lot of small businesses in Ontario which may employ workers at minimum wage and provide them with increased expenses to the bottom line during already turbulent economic times. So, while these companies are likely to be experiencing competitive pressures, downward pricing and decreased sales, they are forced to increase wages with likely little increase to productivity and positive impact on the bottom line. As you can see, I am somewhat mixed on this topic. While the effects of an increase to minimum wage will likely have positive long term economic impacts as those dollars re-renter the economy through increased spending, the short term effects to struggling small businesses right now are likely greater that would otherwise have been during times of strong markets.

We’ve also heard about the introduction of the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) in Ontario to be phased in July 1, 2010, to replace the now concurrently levied GST and PST taxes. While the provincial government spews the benefits of harmonization and how it will be great for business in the province, this is another topic I digest with mixed emotion. Having a young family at home, I understand that items such as diapers, formula, groceries, etc will now be subject to both taxes under the HST while they previously were subject to exemptions. Then there is the talk about new home sales – to face an 8% increase (yes, that’s $40,000 on a $500,000 home!!!). Talk is that homes $400K and under will be exempt from the additional PST, however, have you seen a new home sell for less than $400K in the GTA? How will these policies affect us in HR? – Everything from ramp up time to train or hire finance staff in applying the new rules, dealing with employees who may need to purchase homes in less expensive areas commute to work from areas further from work (or ask to telecommute, etc), potential increase to cost in raw materials and need to make overall business cost/staffing reductions, and so on. As I always present the issues, just something to think about as it relates to your business and the potential impacts on your employees.

Finally, I saw in the news that Google has announced Street View in Canada. While personal privacy may be of concern to you, it will be interesting how that may affect business concerns about privacy. It may prompt HR professionals to consider what sort of employee spaces may be viewable from the street (eating areas, smoking areas, parking lots). What about pictures snapped of the street at the front of your building while employees are coming to work, clients are entering the front door, or job candidates are coming in for an interview. While the odds of being photographed are extremely low, and an issue arising out of it is even less likely, HR professionals should consider the impacts on employee privacy and where risks may or may not exist. While I think the technology is amazing and love the concept of Street View, I believe there are and have been many court challenges in the United States on the service as it currently relates to the privacy of American citizens.

Just because I like to be on top of legislative changes, particularly those which may have any relevance to employment laws or the HR profession, I would like to reference the new Apology Act in Ontario. While most likely catering to mitigate animosity, promote mediation and ultimately reduce unnecessary litigation in the health care tort cases, there may be further reaching impacts of the Act. Perhaps there may be an opportunity for otherwise unempathetic corporations to be more compassionate and open during employee terminations – of course, every situation is different and this new Act may make no difference whatsoever on how you mitigate risk during employee dismissals.

On March 11th, Bill 108 (the Apology Act), as originally introduced as a private members bill in Sault Ste. Marie by MPP David Orazietti (as Bill 59), passed third and final reading at Queen’s Park. Bill 108, as was introduced by Chris Bentley (the Attorney General) was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy following second reading debate for further public consultation, but passed by the legislature and adopted by the McGuinty government with very little change prior to the third reading.

The idea is that the Act will enhance the dispute resolution process by allowing parties to communicate genuine compassion, sorrow and regret without having to worry that such actions will form allegations of liability or be held as evidence in later civil court proceedings.

Not having completely read the legislation, I still remain unsure at this point the impact that it would have beyond civil litigation – at perhaps a Labour Board hearing or Human Rights tribunal. In these later cases, it is likely that an apology may not resolve a dispute anyways, but it will be interested to read into the legislation further just to determine how far reaching it is.

Apparently, the legislation will allow an individual or organization to offer an apology as part of a dispute resolution process without concern over legal liability. Again, the dominate mention so far is pertinent to civil litigation and civil courts. Interesting, facts from the American Bar Association Journal indicate that 30% of all plaintiffs would not have sued had an apology been given.

Just a little bit more factual information that I have found – Liberals and Conservatives generally voted in favour of the legislation, while the NDP voted against it. In the U.S., similar legislation has proven to be very positive and well received. Ontario is now the fifth jurisdiction in Canada to pass Apology legislation. Thirty-five US states also have some form of apology legislation.

While we have yet to see where this will go and how deep an impact it will have in Ontario, there is a lot of potential for positive results. It appears on the surface to be geared mostly to health care situations, but may be more far reaching. If you have not yet, as an employer, it is worth familiarizing yourself with the legislation and whether or not aspects of it may be applicable to your situation.