Time off for parental leave doesn’t count; Tuck in that shirt
Time off for parental leave doesn’t count
Calgary — The clock on reasonable notice can’t start running while a worker is on parental leave, an Alberta Court ruled. Cardiac Wellness Institute of Calgary was ordered to pay eight months’ notice to a worker it fired without cause. Cardiac Wellness argued it gave Linda Kyluik notice of termination on Nov. 27, 2003, when she was on parental leave, and that was the date the notice period should start. The court said Alberta law is clear that a worker on maternity or parental leave cannot be terminated. Kyluik was due eight months’ notice from July 1, 2004, the date she was scheduled to return to work.
Tuck in that shirt
Calgary — An arbitrator has ruled a retail store cannot order its unionized employees to tuck in their shirts. Calgary Co-operative Ltd. was re-branding itself, and wanted all workers to wear their shirts tucked in. The union challenged the policy, saying the rule humiliated larger workers by claiming a tucked-in shirt is unflattering. The arbitrator said there simply wasn’t any evidence to suggest a tucked-in shirt was more appealing than an untucked one.
Calgary — The clock on reasonable notice can’t start running while a worker is on parental leave, an Alberta Court ruled. Cardiac Wellness Institute of Calgary was ordered to pay eight months’ notice to a worker it fired without cause. Cardiac Wellness argued it gave Linda Kyluik notice of termination on Nov. 27, 2003, when she was on parental leave, and that was the date the notice period should start. The court said Alberta law is clear that a worker on maternity or parental leave cannot be terminated. Kyluik was due eight months’ notice from July 1, 2004, the date she was scheduled to return to work.
Tuck in that shirt
Calgary — An arbitrator has ruled a retail store cannot order its unionized employees to tuck in their shirts. Calgary Co-operative Ltd. was re-branding itself, and wanted all workers to wear their shirts tucked in. The union challenged the policy, saying the rule humiliated larger workers by claiming a tucked-in shirt is unflattering. The arbitrator said there simply wasn’t any evidence to suggest a tucked-in shirt was more appealing than an untucked one.
