runny3mede
Jan 15, 2009, 11:16 PM
Hi,
This seems to be the best place to put employment law questions so hopefully someone can help me.
I work for a major Canadian retailer in a head-office position. I am at a team leader level. The structure above me is director reporting to AVP reporting to the president. There is a level missing in the normal structure. There was a VP who was dismissed for non-performance.
The company is in the midst of implementing a "core hour" policy that was announced to all associates in mid-November. The policy is to take effect for all associates on March 1, 2009, allowing associates to make adjustments to schedules and such. Essentially the policy moves employees from a 7-1/2 hour day to an 8 hour work day plus 1 hour unpaid lunch and two 15 minute paid breaks. Core hours are between 8 - 5pm. Start and end times may vary on the 1/2 hour between 7 - 9am but if meetings are scheduled the associate is expected to attend and still work their set schedule. For example, if I choose to work from 7 - 4pm and someone schedules a meeting between 4 and 5pm, I am expected to arrive at 7am on that day and work until 5pm. There is no compensation in lieu or otherwise. Management was given discretion for adjustments to the policy based on business need.
HR was approached about the early start of the policy and was surprised to hear what was happening but did not initiate any enquiries about it.
The issue is not with the core hours policy but the way that it was implemented within my team. Last Monday, our AVP announced that our team would be starting the core hours policy effective that day. There was no previous communication to the team that we would be expected to start earlier then other areas of the company and as such people were a bit surprised and confused. A number of people have had challenges trying to reorganize child care and carpooling on such short notice and have asked for more time to adjust. All requests have been denied. After a week of "cooler" talk and stress, a few of the team members asked their directors for a team meeting to discuss the policy and to get clarification on why we were being treated differently than other areas of the business. The directors' request for a team meeting was declined by the AVP who stated "The policy is clear, no one should be confused. A meeting is not required." The directors were given a type-written document stating the policy plus additional information regarding a separate policy relating to work-hour appointments who in turn asked the team members to sign the document. The document was not on corporate letter-head nor was it signed by the AVP, the directors or any other corporate representative (HR, Legal, etc.). The directors advised the team members after being asked that to their knowledge HR had no knowledge of this document and that no other team would be asked to sign it.
Two incidents have occurred in addition to this.
1) Associate A approached her manager the day after core hours started asking that she be allowed to start on the 1/4 hour due to train schedules. The associate asked to start at 7:45am and leave at 4:45pm. The associate would not have the option to stay until 5pm if a meeting was scheduled. The associate was advised that this was not one of the approved start and end times according to the policy and would need to figure something out. This associate was the first associate presented with the document and asked by her manager to sign the document stating that she understood the policy and would adhere to it. The result, because her start time is 8am is that she can't leave until 5pm. The next train available is 7pm. She gets home at almost 8:30pm.
2) Associate B approached her manager the day after core hours started asking to be allowed to leave one hour early on Fridays for the next 16 weeks to accommodate a paid university course. The associate offered to work through lunch on Friday or later in the week to make up the time. Her request was declined and she was given 3 options. She could abide by the new core hour rules, she could become permanent part-time associate or she could quit. The contract is pending in HR but the associate has moved to permanent part-time in order not to lose the tuition she already paid. It is not likely that she will be put back to full-time at the end of the 16 weeks as there is a hiring freeze in effect.
I guess my questions are..
1) Can the AVP change the start date of a company mandated policy without notice to the associates and/or HR?
2) Can the AVP require team members to sign a document that is unapproved by HR?
3) Does what happened to associates a & b warrant further investigation by a labour lawyer? If so, what would the approach be?
4) What is the likely response by HR if the team brings this information forward?
There are ongoing morale and culture issues within the team. Tactics such as these have been used in a handful of situations by the AVP since he started with the department/company 7 months ago.
Thanks in advance for your time and help.
This seems to be the best place to put employment law questions so hopefully someone can help me.
I work for a major Canadian retailer in a head-office position. I am at a team leader level. The structure above me is director reporting to AVP reporting to the president. There is a level missing in the normal structure. There was a VP who was dismissed for non-performance.
The company is in the midst of implementing a "core hour" policy that was announced to all associates in mid-November. The policy is to take effect for all associates on March 1, 2009, allowing associates to make adjustments to schedules and such. Essentially the policy moves employees from a 7-1/2 hour day to an 8 hour work day plus 1 hour unpaid lunch and two 15 minute paid breaks. Core hours are between 8 - 5pm. Start and end times may vary on the 1/2 hour between 7 - 9am but if meetings are scheduled the associate is expected to attend and still work their set schedule. For example, if I choose to work from 7 - 4pm and someone schedules a meeting between 4 and 5pm, I am expected to arrive at 7am on that day and work until 5pm. There is no compensation in lieu or otherwise. Management was given discretion for adjustments to the policy based on business need.
HR was approached about the early start of the policy and was surprised to hear what was happening but did not initiate any enquiries about it.
The issue is not with the core hours policy but the way that it was implemented within my team. Last Monday, our AVP announced that our team would be starting the core hours policy effective that day. There was no previous communication to the team that we would be expected to start earlier then other areas of the company and as such people were a bit surprised and confused. A number of people have had challenges trying to reorganize child care and carpooling on such short notice and have asked for more time to adjust. All requests have been denied. After a week of "cooler" talk and stress, a few of the team members asked their directors for a team meeting to discuss the policy and to get clarification on why we were being treated differently than other areas of the business. The directors' request for a team meeting was declined by the AVP who stated "The policy is clear, no one should be confused. A meeting is not required." The directors were given a type-written document stating the policy plus additional information regarding a separate policy relating to work-hour appointments who in turn asked the team members to sign the document. The document was not on corporate letter-head nor was it signed by the AVP, the directors or any other corporate representative (HR, Legal, etc.). The directors advised the team members after being asked that to their knowledge HR had no knowledge of this document and that no other team would be asked to sign it.
Two incidents have occurred in addition to this.
1) Associate A approached her manager the day after core hours started asking that she be allowed to start on the 1/4 hour due to train schedules. The associate asked to start at 7:45am and leave at 4:45pm. The associate would not have the option to stay until 5pm if a meeting was scheduled. The associate was advised that this was not one of the approved start and end times according to the policy and would need to figure something out. This associate was the first associate presented with the document and asked by her manager to sign the document stating that she understood the policy and would adhere to it. The result, because her start time is 8am is that she can't leave until 5pm. The next train available is 7pm. She gets home at almost 8:30pm.
2) Associate B approached her manager the day after core hours started asking to be allowed to leave one hour early on Fridays for the next 16 weeks to accommodate a paid university course. The associate offered to work through lunch on Friday or later in the week to make up the time. Her request was declined and she was given 3 options. She could abide by the new core hour rules, she could become permanent part-time associate or she could quit. The contract is pending in HR but the associate has moved to permanent part-time in order not to lose the tuition she already paid. It is not likely that she will be put back to full-time at the end of the 16 weeks as there is a hiring freeze in effect.
I guess my questions are..
1) Can the AVP change the start date of a company mandated policy without notice to the associates and/or HR?
2) Can the AVP require team members to sign a document that is unapproved by HR?
3) Does what happened to associates a & b warrant further investigation by a labour lawyer? If so, what would the approach be?
4) What is the likely response by HR if the team brings this information forward?
There are ongoing morale and culture issues within the team. Tactics such as these have been used in a handful of situations by the AVP since he started with the department/company 7 months ago.
Thanks in advance for your time and help.