37 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Alchemy Salon in St. Andrew's Square had closed suddenly.




Article about the Tribunal award: http://www.straight....-pregnant-woman

[sebberry]

I wonder if the closure was to avoid payment or if the payment forced the closure.

[VicHockeyFan]

I wonder if the closure was to avoid payment or if the payment forced the closure.

Aren't they essentially the same thing? ie. either way, the judgement meant he closed his business and let his staff go.

The judgement does not look favourable to the defendant. But also note, the defendant paid his own legal bills (and it looks like he represented himself at the hearing), and the plaintiff was given a full legal team, paid at taxpayers expense, and even if the plaintiff lost, she could never be held liable for her legal costs, or the defendant's.

[Mike K.]

It is unfortunate that a longtime business has had to shut its doors as a result of the tribunal's decision. Clearly a $14,000 hit was too much of a financial strain and I'm sure there were additional costs related to the case and the hearing.

A small business can have a really difficult time when a pregnant employee takes maternity leave and this situation is a perfect example of how government is not doing enough to assist.

[jonny]

Seems odd that they would close. Did they declare bankruptcy?

Anybody have a chance to read the case and willing to provide a synopsis of what went down?

[Sparky]

Seems odd that they would close. Did they declare bankruptcy?

Anybody have a chance to read the case and willing to provide a synopsis of what went down?

http://www.straight....-pregnant-woman

[VicHockeyFan]

Seems odd that they would close. Did they declare bankruptcy?

Anybody have a chance to read the case and willing to provide a synopsis of what went down?

I did. It did not paint the defendant in a good light, but again it was him as a layman against government funded lawyers.

They fired her by text a week after they were informed she was pregnant. And they might not have been clear in addressing her prior poor performance prior to the dismissal.

[VicHockeyFan]

It is unfortunate that a longtime business has had to shut its doors as a result of the tribunal's decision. Clearly a $14,000 hit was too much of a financial strain and I'm sure there were additional costs related to the case and the hearing.

A small business can have a really difficult time when a pregnant employee takes maternity leave and this situation is a perfect example of how government is not doing enough to assist.

The government should be offering assistance to people that become pregnant at a time inconvenient to employers? I don't get it.

[jonny]

I did. It did not paint the defendant in a good light, but again it was him as a layman against government funded lawyers.

They fired her by text a week after they were informed she was pregnant. And they might not have been clear in addressing her prior poor performance prior to the dismissal.

Ahh I see. So is Alchemy shutting down more due to damaged reputation than financial hardship?

Doesn't make sense that they would close up shop over $14,000. Their monthly sales were likely more than that.

[jonny]

A small business can have a really difficult time when a pregnant employee takes maternity leave and this situation is a perfect example of how government is not doing enough to assist.

The plaintiff wasn't even at the point of needing maternity leave. From the Straight article (thanks Sparky) it looks like she was experiencing morning sickness and was requesting some modifications in her work schedule.

Employers need to keep in mind that if they intend to fire somebody with just cause that they need lots of documentation as support, or be ready to fork out financial compensation for firing somebody without cause.

There are a lot of questionable firings that get nowhere near a human rights tribunal. Most people just find another job and move on.

[spanky123]

You don't need to have lawyers at a Tribunal.

The defendant screwed up. In any case like this the issue boils down to credibility and the salon owners were vague and evasive. $14K for someone who worked just over 3 months making $800 a month part time is a lot though.

If the salon was doing well then they would have been able to absorb that.

[VicHockeyFan]

You don't need to have lawyers at a Tribunal.

Just as you don't when defending yourself on murder charges, but it sure helps, if you hope for a win.

The defendant screwed up. In any case like this the issue boils down to credibility and the salon owners were vague and evasive. $14K for someone who worked just over 3 months making $800 a month part time is a lot though.

Vague and evasive in your mind, reading the ruling. You were not at the hearing.

If the salon was doing well then they would have been able to absorb that.

True, but dozens of businesses close every month in this city, for lack of finances, and they do so without a $14k tribunal hearing ruling against them.

[spanky123]

^ I wasn't at the hearing but I read the transcript and it is hard to believe that the owners couldn't remember what the evaluation said and couldn't produce an offer letter when asked by the judge. When you are up against someone who is organized and clear of thought you will lose that argument 99 times out of 100.

I had a small claims court case 5 or so years ago where I barely bothered to prepare because the plaintiff had no merit to his claim whatsoever. The plaintiff showed up with a neatly organized binder and walked home with $600 of mine and I learned a very important lesson.

In any event the whole incident could have been handled better and I agree that the award seemed lop-sided. I was only suggesting that the $14K by itself was probably not the only reason why the shop closed. A thriving business could have paid that.

[Mike K.]

The government should be offering assistance to people that become pregnant at a time inconvenient to employers? I don't get it.

No no, what I mean is business should have more wriggle room and financial assistance. To pay the employee on maternity leave a partial wage (it's not obligatory, but the government only pays 55% via EI), plus the wage of a temporary replacement (who requires training, etc), and of course the loss of a seasoned employee for an extended period, can place a financial strain on a small business. Instead of pumping money into who knows how many Andrew Duffy's perhaps we should have a more equitable system in place to assist private companies with their maternity leave obligations -- particularly with a growing number of men taking leaves of absence for upwards of five weeks (paid via EI) but not long enough for a company to find a qualified temp.

Here is a great article everyone should read.

[VicHockeyFan]

To pay the employee on maternity leave a wage, plus the wage of a temporary replacement, can place a financial strain on a small business.

You don't have to, EI takes care of that for general employers. Some collective agreements (unions) might have better programs over and above.

http://www.serviceca...yparental.shtml

[Mike K.]

Yeah I edited my post, it's not obligatory but many employers do pay over and above the 55% EI wage in order to maintain good relations with an employee that they value. If an employer doesn't at least partially top up the employee may get the wrong idea and become resentful -- I've seen it happen.

[jonny]

No no, what I mean is small businesses shouldn't have to be financially inconvenienced by the pregnancy of an employee.

Woah now.

Nobody should get fired because they became pregnant. Full stop. And if they are fired, there is a myriad of human rights laws that require financial compensation for wrongful dismissal. Terminating somebody because they became pregnant is wrongful dismissal and grounds for financial compensation.

The fact that the owners of Alchemy did not know this, or know that they either needed cause for dismissal with the required myriad of documentation as back up, or need to provide financial compensation, is their own fault.

I'm sorry to small, medium, and large businesses, government and NGO's, but women get pregnant. It's a reality of life and it's a reality of having employees. This isn't 1957.

[Mike K.]

I don't think I said the employer should fire the employee. And you're right, it's definitely not 1957.

But the fact of the matter is small businesses can be significantly impacted by an employee leaving on maternity leave. There are considerable costs associated with this and employers need access to a program that assists with those costs (I'm not even talking about topping up maternity EI but costs with employee recruitment, training, etc., and then the potential for loss of productivity or business as a result).

[VicHockeyFan]

Woah now.

Nobody should get fired because they became pregnant. Full stop. And if they are fired, there is a myriad of human rights laws that require financial compensation for wrongful dismissal. Terminating somebody because they became pregnant is wrongful dismissal and grounds for financial compensation.

Yes, we all agree. But the reality is, if a pregnant employee showed up for a job interview, they are much less likely to get the job with you knowing that they will be off for a few months, in just a few months from their hire date.

Similarly, if a job applicant showed up and told you he had terminal cancer, you would not likely hire them.

That's reality, and has nothing to do with legislation.

So the reality is, employers are financially hurt by pregnancy and illness leaves. So if we can not, as employers, write into our employment agreement that a person will not be compensated during illness or pregnancy, then maybe the government needs to increase the compensation at the EI level when that happens.

[jonny]

I don't think I said the employer should fire the employee. And you're right, it's definitely not 1957.

But the fact of the matter is small businesses can be significantly impacted by an employee leaving on maternity leave. There are considerable costs associated with this and employers need access to a program that assists with those costs (I'm not even talking about topping up maternity EI but costs with employee recruitment, training, etc., and then the potential for loss of productivity or business as a result).

I didn't mean to intimate that I thought you were saying the employer should fire the pregnant employee.

Employee recruitment and training are costs of any business. Personnel come and go. It is backwards to think of a woman becoming pregnant and taking maternity leave as a loss of productivity for the business, and I think this is the last place we need another government program.