“Ridiculous” legislation sees HR-language banned

“Ridiculous” legislation sees HR-language banned

“Ridiculous” legislation sees HR-language banned Ontario employers are reeling after a controversial Act was passed this morning, banning the use of certain terminology in employment contracts and other workplace documents.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” one industry leader told HRM. “We rely on these terms to get our point across and connect to everyone else in the organization.”

Politicians, however, took a different stance and blasted the much-used terminology as “baffling beyond belief,” adding that employers had relied on the exclusive and ambiguous lexis for far too long.

The push for change started some months ago, after disgruntled employee Alma Winer won her constructive dismissal claim. The 44-year-old successfully argued that she couldn’t be held accountable for her poor performance or lack of direction because her leaders failed to communicate effectively.

The judge agreed, saying it was impossible for 44-year-old Winer to identify any specific requirements from the instructions offered.

He went on to provide a multitude of examples that he advised should no longer appear in job descriptions, employment contracts or, in fact, any converse within the office environment.
These include:
  • Dynamic
  • Synergy
  • Game changer
  • Proactive
  • Paradigm shift
  • The war for talent
  • Skills gap
  • Big data
  • Scalable
  • Talent mobility
  • Talent community
  • Core competency
  • Connectivity
The controversial ruling, which will give employees added power in constructive dismissal claims, comes into place on April 1, 2017.

On a final note, HRM would like to wish all our readers a Happy April Fools’ Day.

More like this:

The training technique many are too afraid to use 

How to handle tricky overtime requests 

Could hijack hostage’s selfie see him sacked?
  • Dora 2016-04-01 8:52:56 AM
    April Fools ??
    Post a reply
  • Corette Miller 2016-04-01 10:37:28 AM
    Fuuny! You got me...C
    Post a reply
  • Paula J. MacLean 2016-04-01 11:13:55 AM
    I'm an HR consultant (mainly in Western Canada) of may years and author of 6 books for non-profit leaders. I have not read the wrongful dismissal judgment nor the new legislation. However, when I look at the presiding justices' list, I tend to agree with him. These words are jargon (not just HR jargon either, but corporate speak) that many "people on the line" will not understand. We have long since embraced plain language protocols and this may just be a good invitation to up our game. It is entirely possible and (I believe) more responsible to develop job descriptions that actually describe (novel idea) what people must do. Our goal as managers should always be to help employees (and their supervisors/managers) to be and do the best they can be while working for their employers. Job descriptions full of "junk" don't help accomplish this goal.
    Post a reply