Skip to content

Client Update: Valentine’s Day @ the Workplace

Yellow diamonds in the light
And we’re standing side by side
As your shadow crosses mine
What it takes to come alive
It’s the way I’m feeling I just can’t deny
But I’ve gotta let it go – Rihanna

Office romances are tempting. Sometimes emotions interfere with common sense when it comes to love at the workplace. While a specific workplace romance policy may be difficult to enforce, Valentine’s Day is a reminder to review your Code of Conduct, Harassment and Social Media policies to ensure that a workplace romance does not interfere with business objectives.

CODE OF CONDUCT

At a minimum, your Code of Conduct should:

  • State that romantic relationships must not affect the work environment or productivity;
  • Require disclosure of superior | subordinate relationships to human resources; and
  • Make employees aware of the company harassment policy.

HARASSMENT

Not all relationships have happy endings. Relationships can be complicated when the relationship crosses from romance to harassment. How do you best respond to a harassment complaint? Ensure your harassment policy is clear, communicated and enforced. The fundamentals of a harassment policy include:

  • A clear definition of harassment;
  • A complaint process;
  • A fair and confidential investigation process; and
  • A fair and final outcome mechanism.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNET ETIQUETTE

Welcome to the World Wide Web of potential sexual harassment claims. Now is as good a time as any to review your social media policy and ensure that something as seemingly innocuous as ‘omg, u look gr8’ does not land you before a human rights tribunal or in a courtroom. Do your social media or Internet policies dovetail with other applicable policies (e.g., harassment, technology and confidentiality policies)? Employers should emphasize that all company policies apply when employees use social media.

Love may not conquer all, but it may conquer a few. Employees must be aware of the rules, procedures and consequences of their romance. While this won’t solve all potential issues of workplace romances, it will assist in setting boundaries to protect all parties involved.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background of our Labour & Employment practice group, please visit www.stewartmckelvey.com.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top