It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman FIRED From Temp Job For Having Poor Credit

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed
Actually, this is completely untrue. During the first 3 months of employment an employer can fire you without notice for ANY reason they want. Don't like your tie?..fired...don't like your face...fired, hair?..fired. Discrimination is against a persons sex, age or race, not against their financial status. And even after the first 3 months, you can still be fired for no reason at all, but you would be entitled to severance pay equal to roughly 2 weeks pay for service up to 5 years and 3 weeks after that.
..Ex


You're both correct, to a point.

In Ontario, you can be discharged as a probationary employee for any reason provided it is not done abritrarily, in bad faith, or for a ground prohibited by the Human Rights Code.

An employer cannot discharge an employee for their financial status, good or bad. In fact, the Wages Act in Ontario stipulates that if you have a judgement levied against you that provides for a garnishment of your wages, the employer must comply and forward the amount of the garnishment (maximum of 20 percent of gross except in child support where that limit is 50 percent) or the employer is on the hook for the judgement. As part of that act, the employer cannot levy a fee against the employee for adminstrating payments to the court to satisfy the debt, either.

An employer cannot even ask a prospective employee about their financial history without running afoul of the various and sundry provincial and federal privacy laws. Any employer that asks is opening themselves up to legal action. The bottom line is that if they #-can them for the above or do not hire them specifically because of their financial status, they're going to get their hands slapped nastybad.

In a Union environment, the Union may grieve on behalf of a probationary employee if the discharge is for one of the reasons outlined above, otherwise the affected employee can appeal to the Ministry of Labour for wrongful dismissal.

Arbitrators and the courts look very dimly on employers who act in such a manner. Recently there have been several judicial reviews of decisions by arbitrators and judges that have affirmed the right for those arbitrators and judges to levy punitive damages against heavy-handed employers on top of lost wages and benefits.

In short, probationary employees are somewhat protected, but not totally.

In terms of termination without cause in Ontario, you are entitled to a week's notice (or pay in lieu of such notice) to a maximum of eight weeks. YOu're not entitled to 'termination pay' until you've worked with an employer for a period of five years at which time you are entitled to one week's pay per year of service to a maximum of twenty six weeks.

That's the black letter law of it, but in recent history, arbitrators and judges have been awarding approximately a month per year of service for wrongful dismissal, depending on the employee's age, financial situation, ability to find work (mitigate their losses), education and family status. And, if you're a 'probationary employee' that was hired away from another job by this employer, judges and arbitrators are using tenure with that previous employer in determining length of service for the purposes of determining what's owed in a wrongful dismissal case.

So, you can probably see why an employer would not be asking somebody so, how's you're credit rating at an interview, or sending them to the employment gallows after hire because they're gonna get whacked badly.

edit on 8-11-2010 by GoalPoster because: additional information



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
“To the Members of the California State Assembly:


By order of the Governor:


"I am returning Assembly Bill 482 without my signature.
This bill would prohibit an employer from using a consumer credit report for employment purposes with certain exceptions.

This bill is similar to legislation I have vetoed for the last two years on the basis that
California’s employers and businesses have inherent needs to obtain information about
applicants for employment and existing law already provides protections for employees
from improper use of credit reports. As with the last two bills, this measure would also
significantly increase the exposure for potential litigation over the use of credit checks.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger”


dailyplanet.corragroup.com...



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join