Entrepreneurship & Small Business

Dismissing a pregnant employee

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 24th, 2018 8:32 am
Newbie
Aug 8, 2017
40 posts
13 upvotes
> Offer to reimburse her the cost regardless of the result.

For the love of god, at least do this out of pure curiosity. I think we are all waiting to see all the hidden nuggets in that report she seems to be wanting to hide! LOL

It would at least be cheaper than a lawsuit yes? You don't need her finding some feminist-lawyer to turn the table and play victim, making some big huge stink about it in the local community on how you mistreat women at that operation.

Look at it this way, she wouldn't be the first Karla Homolka who ended up working near little kids, despite being a known deviant sexual predator who was supposed to be prohibited from being anywhere near an occupation close to children. Don't let it happen again!

Tell her you have both a moral obligation, and a legal one.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 30, 2007
4345 posts
444 upvotes
GTA
InvalidName wrote: > Offer to reimburse her the cost regardless of the result.

For the love of god, at least do this out of pure curiosity. I think we are all waiting to see all the hidden nuggets in that report she seems to be wanting to hide! LOL

It would at least be cheaper than a lawsuit yes? You don't need her finding some feminist-lawyer to turn the table and play victim, making some big huge stink about it in the local community on how you mistreat women at that operation.

Look at it this way, she wouldn't be the first Karla Homolka who ended up working near little kids, despite being a known deviant sexual predator who was supposed to be prohibited from being anywhere near an occupation close to children. Don't let it happen again!

Tell her you have both a moral obligation, and a legal one.
we already let her go...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39338 posts
6341 upvotes
Winnipeg
cardguy wrote: i believe she is bs'ing ...afaik...a "vulnerable check" is free of charge from police as it is mandatory in certain occupations such as day care and schools...its the standard criminal check that costs as its not mandated by law, just a company policy such as myself.....I had similar issue (with a female) ..she gave excuses and such..and when I gave ultimatum..she finally handed over a real bad background check..about 13 charges in 6 years....she was let go right after.
i thought that was a condition of been hired? as in, she would have to submit it before working on day 1.
Banned
Apr 5, 2013
5810 posts
3019 upvotes
keenland
divx wrote: i thought that was a condition of been hired? as in, she would have to submit it before working on day 1.
it is supposed to be..but in certain areas of Ontario...it may take 2-3 weeks after application at least, before one can be had.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39338 posts
6341 upvotes
Winnipeg
cardguy wrote: it is supposed to be..but in certain areas of Ontario...it may take 2-3 weeks after application at least, before one can be had.
yes, the gta takes a long time for paperwork
Banned
Apr 5, 2013
5810 posts
3019 upvotes
keenland
divx wrote: yes, the gta takes a long time for paperwork
actually GTA is quick and in the case of York Region or Peel...you get it right away..outskirts..small town Ontario, is usually a couple weeks...but it depends on your home address.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jan 11, 2008
7816 posts
1290 upvotes
GTA
I'm surprised to hear there is leeway given for these checks by the government. I would have expected an employee would have to produce a clear check prior to commencing employment with children, no exceptions, supervised or not. Especially for reasons like the above where it never was provided.

As a parent it is disturbing to hear that anyone could be employed as a child care provider for months without producing a clear criminal background check for vulnerable sector... I couldn't (and shouldn't) even volunteer in my own child's classroom without this.
When your mind says give up, hope whispers "one more try"
Never say never
Banned
Apr 5, 2013
5810 posts
3019 upvotes
keenland
sillysimms wrote: I'm surprised to hear there is leeway given for these checks by the government. I would have expected an employee would have to produce a clear check prior to commencing employment with children, no exceptions, supervised or not. Especially for reasons like the above where it never was provided.

As a parent it is disturbing to hear that anyone could be employed as a child care provider for months without producing a clear criminal background check for vulnerable sector... I couldn't (and shouldn't) even volunteer in my own child's classroom without this.

apples to oranges..working with children (vulnerable check) is a whole different check..you may be printed etc...also, its mandatory...this thread is not about that one so don't worry...no one is getting hired without one.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jan 11, 2008
7816 posts
1290 upvotes
GTA
cardguy wrote: apples to oranges..working with children (vulnerable check) is a whole different check..you may be printed etc...also, its mandatory...this thread is not about that one so don't worry...no one is getting hired without one.
I agree with you. I've done the check and fortunately didn't have to do the fingerprints since my name, birth date, etc didn't match with a registered sex offender.

However, OP is operating a fully licensed daycare and the person worked with children for almost 3 months without producing a record check. That's why I was so surprised that this was allowed... vulnerable check absolutely required.

Section 61 of the Child Care and Early Years Act details exceptions to requiring a vulnerable check the first day of employment... but I doubt 3 months really fits within those exceptions
When your mind says give up, hope whispers "one more try"
Never say never
Member
Jul 3, 2002
358 posts
129 upvotes
Have a paper trail of your discussion with her regarding no police check done. Also, consult with a lawyer.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)