the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing; the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited; and other employees being adversely affected by Ms. Datt’s limitations.
Via…
the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing; the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited; and other employees being adversely affected by Ms. Datt’s limitations.
Via…
And the radical enviromentalists would rather have starvation then plenty of food
What in the world’s name has happened to Canada?
The human right to destroy the company you work for? To make the company suffer, because you suffer?
Too ridiculous for words.
Well, considering that McDonald’s are always looking for help, everywhere…I can’t quite digest the White Knight defense of how they accommodated this person by suffering through 3 absences and return to work episodes.
Given that the person had worked for them for 20 years, I think they could have looked around and found enough varied work that would have accommodated the skin condition.
So they ended up in a HRC scenario. Anyone think it was due to them following their own best interest and not giving the employee due consideration?
There are always people who will take advantage of a system, and there are always employers who don’t give a rat’s tail about people. In this case, it appears to be the later. I don’t think the employee acted in bad faith.
I had an employee briefly who came on a gov. wage subsidy as they were trying to get her off welfare, and she had two choices, dishwasher or trainee cook, which paid better and involved a lot of prep including vegetables. She picked trainee cook. And she had a skin condition, so I bought her gloves and that wasn’t a problem. Long story short, after about month she suddenly came down with carpel tunnel syndrome. Supposedly, from all that vegetable peeling. That of course qualified her for workmen’s compensation.This was a case of an employee working the system. In my opinion, the 20 year employee was not.
So I have no sympathy for an employer with such poor judgment and very limited loyalty.
Hugger
Oh yes, and the no evidence of, probably referred to the dummy not providing written evidence to substantiate their hand washing policy.
You can be right a thousand times over, but in a court environment you have to present the evidence if you want it to be considered. Otherwise, you are assuming, that it will be considered and that is just plain dumb.
And Kate, you are just using a convenient truth to cut a broader swath and support your greater point. Did you learn that from Garth Turner?
Hugger
Gross.