First published on Friday, July 11, 2025
Last updated on Friday, July 11, 2025
Welcome to HR Heartbeat, where we take a look at the week’s most pressing HR and employment law stories. With over a decade of experience working within the HR and employment law industry, I give my opinion on current trends impacting your business, as well as my own personal commentary on all things HR and legal.
Verbal promises or written proof: why paperwork matters
In a recent Ontario case, the Labour Relations Board ruled that full-time hours must be guaranteed in writing. Without written proof, neither employer OR employees can expect such agreements to stand up in a dispute.
A foreign seasonal worker employed at a food packing company was terminated after an error in his schedule. The employee filed a claim for termination based on a 40-hour workweek. He also wanted three hours' pay for being sent home after reporting to work.
But, after investigating, the board found that the employees worked irregular shifts because of crop shortages. Since there was no written agreement confirming the 40-hour workweek, they ruled that termination pay must reflect the worker’s average weekly hours, not an assumed full-time schedule.
While his claim for 40-hour termination pay was denied, the board did award him three hours’ pay under the Employment Standards Act’s (ESA) “three-hour rule.” In the end, the employer paid $485.38 in wages and penalties.
A valuable lesson to learn from this is that verbal assurances often lead to confusion and costly claims. And remember: if it’s not in writing, it’s open to interpretation and that can get expensive!
Exploiting workers is more than just bad business, it’s illegal
In Manitoba, a troubling case has emerged involving two hotel owners now facing labour trafficking charges. After a five-month investigation, the RCMP Human Trafficking Unit uncovered serious allegations of migrant worker exploitation at their business.
Foreign workers were recruited with promises of legal employment and fair pay through LMIA agreements. But conditions took a dark turn, once they arrived.
They were forced to endure 15-hour workdays, below minimum wage pays, threats, and having their IDs withheld. They also didn’t provide the right paperwork for some workers, leaving them even more vulnerable to workplace abuse.
The hotel’s co-owners are now facing multiple charges including trafficking in persons and profiting from exploitation. The RCMP also emphasized that migrant workers and vulnerable individuals remain targets for this kind of abuse.
Exploitation isn’t just unethical, it’s criminal. As an employer, you have a duty to uphold employment standards and treat workers with dignity, regardless of their origin. Transparency, legal compliance, and respect are non-negotiable.
Maternity leave missteps costs employer $330,000
An Ontario employer learned the hard way that changes to someone’s role after maternity leave can come with a hefty price tag.
A senior exec earning $300k went on maternity leave and extended it twice at the company’s request. But when she was ready to return to work, she was hit with a $90k pay cut and demotion.
The company claimed it was purely a financial decision and done to made budget pressures, but the court didn’t agree. It ruled that the changes created pressure for the employee to walk away, amounting to constructive dismissal.
In the end, the employer had to pay over $330K, including $40K in moral damages for how the situation was handled.
Whether it’s maternity leave or any protected leave, changing someone’s role or pay without solid legal footing can land you in serious trouble, so remember to always tread carefully in such matters.
And that’s a wrap from me. Tune in next time for my take on the latest headlines and employment law stories, helping keep your business ahead!
