Busted For Lying On A Resume

It should go without saying not to lie on your CV, but here's a piece about resume cheating that should remind everyone to think twice before they do it:

After just four months on the job, Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson is out of work this week after it was discovered he had lied on his resume.

While his resume boasts 1978 degrees in both accounting and computer science from Massachusetts' Stonehill College, Thompson has since admitted he never earned the latter.

Thompson isn't alone. Here's six more stories of execs who were busted for lying on their resumes.

You Can Be Fired For Facebook Postings

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - The growth of social media has provided a vehicle for some individuals to vent their frustrations on a lot of issues, including stuff that happens in the workplace. But take heed: there is no immunity in using social media to voice workplace displeasure.

A recent case involving a Canada Post employee and Facebook is a good example:

The woman had been given a three-day suspension without pay after being part of a confrontation between older workers and a younger supervisor.

Later, the company discovered a series of Facebook postings by the employee that included derogatory statements about her supervisors and Canada Post. She claimed she had a voodoo doll of one manager and also if she hadn't been drinking she would "take her out on the driveway and run her over," according to the ruling.

The posts were sent to more than 50 Facebook friends, including some co-workers, The Star reported.

Bad move.

Social media can give individuals the unjustified confidence that they can say anything they wish under the protection of privacy. They can't.

In this case, the employee was terminated for the comments. Her union - the Canadian Union of Postal Workers - grieved on the basis that she was a long tenured employee and close to retirement. The Union’s position was that some lesser form of discipline might better suit the circumstances, given the employee’s age and service.

The arbitrator considered these issues, but felt that the lack of remorse displayed by the woman, and her attitude in general, outweighed any factors for leniency.

Everyone needs to be aware. Social media can give individuals the unjustified confidence that they can say anything they wish under the protection of privacy. They can't.

Before posting something online, a question one might ask is, “Would I say the same thing to my supervisor if I were talking to them face to face?" Probably not. As a result of thinking falsely that she was untouchable, this employee did lose her job, and the arbitrator upheld the termination.

Social media does not remove the responsibilities an employee has toward their employer and their supervisor. I agree with the arbitrator’s decision in this case.

In short, take care and be aware, and if in doubt: don't post it online.

Changes Coming to Employment Insurance?

It looks like there may be some changes coming to Employment Insurance. A taste from the CBC:

Finance Minster Jim Flaherty. Photo: CBC

The omnibus budget bill making its way through Parliament makes changes to the Employment Insurance Act, including how suitable employment is defined and determined.

"There’ll be a broader definition and people will have to engage more in the work force," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters on May 14.

Right now, people who become unemployed and who have paid into the Employment Insurance system can collect benefits for a length of time that varies depending on the region where they live. But they must also look for a new job, and start work if something suitable becomes available.

Catch more here.

Some Notes on Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - Regarding the alcohol testing case currently headed for the Supreme Court, this type of thing has been an issue for years. I recall cases within the financial industry where institutions wanted to test employees for substance abuse, and ultimately the action was thrown out - primarily because of the answer to one question: is the testing necessary for the job (i.e. safety concerns)?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the next issue is whether the company’s testing program is too invasive. Ultimately, a blanket yes to testing has the potential for a very slippery slope.

In the current testing case, the company’s position is that testing is necessary for safety reasons, and given this article's content, I would agree.

I would also agree with the unions who say such a policy is not required where it infringes excessively on the rights of the workers. An additional valid point is whether there has to be an “incident” before an employer can introduce such a policy to protect other workers as well as themselves.

It remains unclear where the line should be drawn, and the Supreme Court will have to determine whether a line needs to be drawn at all. I'm looking forward to the outcome of the case.

Should Random Alcohol Tests Be Allowed in the Workplace?

Testing?

Here's a look at an interesting case that's heading to the Supreme Court. At issue is whether unionized workers should have to face random alcohol tests:

It’s a fight that began with one pulp-and-paper mill worker in Saint John, and a “zero” reading on a breath-analysis alcohol test six years ago. Now, it is headed to Canada’s highest court. 

The case, which pits the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 30 against Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., is being watched closely by employment lawyers across Canada, who say it could have broad implications.

Read the rest of the story here.

Union vs. Non-Union Legal Options

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - Pace Law Firm: I'd like to take a minute to talk about the employee/employer relationship and how it differs in union and non-union shops. Note that this is not a critique of either a unionized workplace or a non-unionized workplace. That discussion is best left to the workers in their place of employment.

What needs to be remembered is that the employer/employee relationship is different in a unionized place of work.  I sometimes receive phone calls from union members stating they have lost faith in their union representative, and that they want to take the employer to court themselves.  Unfortunately, I have to tell them they're out of luck. It simply isn't an option for union members.

Workers of a unionized environment have a Collective Agreement which outlines all of the terms and conditions of employment between the parties. These include grievance/arbitration procedures that form the basis for resolving disputes in the workplace.

It may be difficult for some workers to understand this, because the situation may leave them feeling that they have limited access to justice.  Not so.

Essentially, unionized workers must follow the Collective Agreement. It doesn't matter if the worker does not agree with the final outcome - the Collective Agreement does not provide that worker with an additional avenue to pursue their issue in a way that workers in a non-unionized environment might.

It may be difficult for some workers to understand this, because the situation may leave them feeling that they have limited access to justice. Not so. The grievance/arbitration process allows the worker/union to seek a resolution in a manner that is intended to be efficient, productive, less costly, and equally as time sensitive as it would be when proceeding through the courts.  Employees in a non-unionized workplace, on the other hand, are left to their own means in establishing the terms and conditions of employment, and in some cases even they make use of employment agreements to outline their terms.

In any event, if “arguments” are in place within either a non-unionized or unionized workplace, the employee is governed by the terms of their respective agreements. One does not really have any procedural advantage over the other, but it is worth remembering what their differences are.