Showing posts with label employee handbooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employee handbooks. Show all posts
Businesses - Do you have a blogging policy?
0 commentsIf you do not, then I suggest reading Blogging consequences. Allot some time to do so, the post is not short. The article points out cases where a blog created liability on the grounds of defamation and cases where employees lost their jobs because of their blog posts.
(I also find it interesting that this blog, Quality System, comes to us from India, and is loaded with references to American law. Any sign of the world's flatness?)
read more “Businesses - Do you have a blogging policy?”
(I also find it interesting that this blog, Quality System, comes to us from India, and is loaded with references to American law. Any sign of the world's flatness?)
Employee blogging - problems
0 commentsTerrible title for this post but bear with me.
I am reading Kevin O'Keefe's Real Lawyers Have Blogs when I reach the post How to stop a disgruntled ex-employee blogger. Kevin O'Keefe comments on a post, How do you stop a disgruntled employee blogger?, from Itbusiness.ca. Frankly, I found Kevin's comment a bit more important than the points of the earlier article.
I am also interested because I see the possibility of problems that fall under the more standard headings of trade secrets and non-disclosure. Without proper preventive measures in place, the business may face more than mere bad publicity. One may be looking at losing one's business.
I think tow types of businesses need to read these posts:
Again, from Kevin O'Keefe:
read more “Employee blogging - problems”
I am reading Kevin O'Keefe's Real Lawyers Have Blogs when I reach the post How to stop a disgruntled ex-employee blogger. Kevin O'Keefe comments on a post, How do you stop a disgruntled employee blogger?, from Itbusiness.ca. Frankly, I found Kevin's comment a bit more important than the points of the earlier article.
One thing Vawn doesn't mention is the necessity of an effective Internet presence. An effective corporate Internet presence is not a Web site or press releases issued across the net. It means having a trusted and reliable voice or, better yet, multiple voices on the blogosphere. An effective Internet presence requires corporate employees to be blogging.Without an Internet presence, I am not sure that a disgruntled employee's badmouthing of the company will mean much. I may be a bit more sensitive about this as I continue to blog about legal issues. I will admit that my marketing of this blog is probably cack-handed at best but I draw very little attention from my local area or even Indiana. Yet, I am online and I do keep an eye out on what, if anything, is said about me out here on the Net. I still skeptical how much the Internet has penetrated some parts of this country (like, say, Indiana).
I am also interested because I see the possibility of problems that fall under the more standard headings of trade secrets and non-disclosure. Without proper preventive measures in place, the business may face more than mere bad publicity. One may be looking at losing one's business.
I think tow types of businesses need to read these posts:
- Those without an Internet presence; and
- Those with an Internet presence.
Again, from Kevin O'Keefe:
A blog, as a means of handling disgruntled employees on the net, may be a bit frightening for corporate heads and PR/communications professionals. But times are changing. Practicality requires doing things differently than they've been done in the past.
Employment Law: Proper Response From Employer Helps
0 commentsEmployers, please read Prompt Response After Harassment Complaint Gets Chili's Off Hook.
Having a harassment policy is not enough. Having a that policy in an employee handbook is not enough. Having the policy and enforcing the policy is the key to success.
read more “Employment Law: Proper Response From Employer Helps”
Chili's Grill & Bar responded promptly and appropriately to an employee's sexual harassment complaints and therefore is not liable even though the worker established a prima facie case of harassment in her lawsuit, the 1st Circuit has ruled.
The appeals court said there was ample evidence that Allison Forrest was subjected to sexual harassment since the actions she alleged occurred because of her sex.
However, because Chili's responded promptly to Forrest's complaints it was entitled to assert an affirmative defense to her allegations, the court said.
Indiana Wage Claims Statute and Paid Time Off
0 commentsI think we are seeing more cases involving Wage Claims Statute, Ind. Code § 22-2-9 (2004). The latest is Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc. (PDF format)
Clarian relied on its employee manual on when to pay Paid Time Off wages (PTO wages). The Court of Appeals relied on the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools, 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007). The Court of Appeals held that the statute controlled:
read more “Indiana Wage Claims Statute and Paid Time Off”
Clarian relied on its employee manual on when to pay Paid Time Off wages (PTO wages). The Court of Appeals relied on the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools, 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007). The Court of Appeals held that the statute controlled:
Here, the Wage Claims Statute, Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2(a), provides that “[w]henever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation occurred[.]” The Wage Claims Statute by its terms mandates compliance. See Naugle, 864 N.E.2d at 1065 (holding that the Wage Payment Statute “by its terms mandates compliance”). The PTO compensation vested when the Named Plaintiffs rendered their services. See Die & Mold, Inc. v. Western, 448 N.E.2d 44, 47-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (Quotation omitted). Thus, the Wage Claims Statute and not Clarian’s policy governs the payment of the PTO wages....Employers need to double check their policies and employees need to know that wages are due ten (10) days after termination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
