• Last Updated:
  • Jul 24th, 2018 8:32 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 10, 2004
4642 posts
727 upvotes
Thornhill
urir10 wrote:
Apr 5th, 2018 11:34 am
The cost is $65, I dont think her issue is the $65 either, she is just doing it out of principal to say that she wont spend money on this with what we are paying her.. which is $16 not even minimum wage.
The fact that we do not want her working for us is very clear and she even knows that. but now that she threatens to sue if we let her go due to pregnancy im not sure what to do
Dismiss her for failure to provide background check. Whatever she thinks is none of her business. Get the dismissal in writing with explanation. That's it. If she sues, you don't need to have a lawyer. If she didn't bother with $few bucks to do the check, she won't bother with a lawyer. If everything is in writing, no lawyer will take the case. IMHO she is BSing. She may be perhaps the scammer so you can counter threaten her if that's true...
Deal Fanatic
Feb 9, 2009
6382 posts
3541 upvotes
You think she'll have time to sue when little timmy is throwing up on her and she's exhausted from an hour of sleep?

In fact I dont think there is a rule that says you cannot fire a pregnant employee if there is cause -- in this case she did not submit to a police check and I'm sorry if my kid is in that daycare and an employee doesn't have a police check done, I would be like WTF?!?! Sorry, get rid of her, she wouldnt stand a chance in court... safety of children over anything else...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 12, 2003
8994 posts
1663 upvotes
Markham
A lot of job has a work condition, if you have lost or not getting the permit or license required for the job in a reasonable time frame (usually written on the job contract). They would be dismissed.
I hope you get her dismissed and the lazy lady get a lesson.
Retired Forum Moderator February 2009 - June 2015
Sr. Member
Sep 7, 2009
508 posts
156 upvotes
Offer to reimburse her the cost regardless of the result. Once she still refuses, terminate with extreme prejudice.
Newbie
Aug 8, 2017
33 posts
7 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.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 30, 2007
4122 posts
341 upvotes
InvalidName wrote:
Apr 18th, 2018 11:53 pm
> 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
28839 posts
2092 upvotes
Winnipeg
cardguy wrote:
Apr 5th, 2018 11:25 am
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.
Deal Addict
Apr 5, 2013
3214 posts
809 upvotes
markham
divx wrote:
Jul 8th, 2018 7:18 pm
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
28839 posts
2092 upvotes
Winnipeg
cardguy wrote:
Jul 9th, 2018 9:16 am
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
Deal Addict
Apr 5, 2013
3214 posts
809 upvotes
markham
divx wrote:
Jul 10th, 2018 1:55 pm
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
7275 posts
787 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
Deal Addict
Apr 5, 2013
3214 posts
809 upvotes
markham
sillysimms wrote:
Jul 11th, 2018 5:16 pm
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
7275 posts
787 upvotes
GTA
cardguy wrote:
Jul 12th, 2018 8:20 pm
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
Jr. Member
Jul 3, 2002
173 posts
36 upvotes
Have a paper trail of your discussion with her regarding no police check done. Also, consult with a lawyer.

Top