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 stewmac.arrdev.ca.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top