Scotiabank employee fired over part-time job

[ashedfc]

Even if you can't make ends meet with your existing salary; you can't take a part-time job (what a ridiculous law)

Times are tough and maybe you are considering taking on a second job to make ends meet. But depending on the terms of your employment, accepting a second position may mean your primary employer can fire you without notice or compensation.

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/sco...050019623.html

[ssbean]

Interesting read!

[Darth Penguin]

it seems that Ms Patterson was aware that there could be a problem well before her employment was terminated.

Furthermore, he noted that Patterson was aware of the rules on conflicts before she studied to become a realtor and the bank applied the policy consistently in the cases of several other employees considering part-time jobs as realtors. The Guidelines were part of the employment contract and having regard to its business interests, the bank had the right to determine what outside activity it would permit

So I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.

[tjthemanto]

I actually agree with Scotia here ..since she was handing real estate business cards on company time to prospective clients .

Its also a conflict of interest since most people will assume that Scotia is also somehow tied or affiliated to her real estate busines since they are in the mortgage lending business.

Now if she was doing this on her own time & nowhere near the Scotia premises & wasn't either directly or indirectly implying that Scotia is affiliated to her real estate business then maybe its a different thing.

[slayer_glade]

I agree with the others. She was aware and signed a contract stating she could not do that and she did it anyway. She screwed herself over, basically.

It's just like those companies that hire you and state you are not allowed to work for a competition company at the same time or even after employment. Hell, my sister works for a pharmaceutical company and has a similar contract.

[freefreefree]

interesting read

[janelcd]

She knew the rules. I don't see a problem here.

[Tresmom]

I work in the Insurance industry and many companies (brokerages) have a similliar code of conduct that you have to adher to.

[Carlotta]

I work in the Insurance industry and many companies (brokerages) have a similliar code of conduct that you have to adher to.

Me as well. I have to sign a document every year disclosing any outside business activities and if they are perceived as a conflict of interest, I could lose my licence.

[Shwa Girl]

it seems that Ms Patterson was aware that there could be a problem well before her employment was terminated.



So I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.

Agree.
It's like if I took a job at a Burger King restaurant and at the same time worked part time food testing lab at McDonalds.

[DianneS]

Clearly. a blatant conflict of interest and in direct contravention of the agreement she signs each year. The bank is protecting their interests and the interests of their customers and shareholders.

[anisa]

there are many employers that don't condone moonlighting, it's nothing new really.

it is a person's responsibility to fully understand their job duties, their employer's rules of conduct, and even any unspoken rules of conduct when it comes to their profession.

sometimes your own actions come back to bite you in the tush

i'm sure she wasn't foolish. anyone who works at a bank would see all sorts of 'potential' of having ties to another industry that relies very much on financing large amounts of money. her mind was working full steam ahead, just not in the right direction perhaps

[Brynhilde]

It sounds like a really sad story at first but that goes for any company you work for. She jeopardized her position at Scotia by conducting herself in a manner that was against the terms of her employment. A lesson learned..

[ashedfc]

Everyone is speaking the same language "its her fault"
Absolutely True, I agree with everyone............

But the main issue here is "Even if you can't make ends meet with your existing salary; you can't take a part-time job (what a ridiculous law)"
I would have mentioned what a ridiculous contract here which is forcing a person to live in poverty (or rather not living a comfortable lifestyle).
In this case I am assuming the institution wasn't providing enough salary to cover her living expenses. Maybe they should provide enough salary, so a person need not do such things; or have some kind of guidelines for other business activity, to allow an individual to earn money based on their potential..

I believe, there should have been more clarity in the guidelines for employees who wish to promote their part-time business..

[slayer_glade]

You're taking the "law" of no second part-time too literally and too strictly.

The article is about employers imposing a restriction through a contract for specific jobs. That's why it states at the end that if a fast-food place imposed such restriction (assuming for normal jobs; i.e. no recipe stealing) then it is deemed excessive.

It is NOT forcing someone to live in poverty. Not all jobs have exclusivity clauses in their contracts. If you want a second job and your first job has such a clause, then guess what? Don't keep the first job. Or find employment where no such clause exists.

Also, she went for her real estate liscense. Which implies she doesn't want to work at a bank for the rest of her life. She wants to be an agent.