Sentences with phrase «accommodate the employee under»

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Under existing human rights law, an employee who commits drug - related misconduct, refuses to admit that he or she has a substance dependency problem and / or to take any steps to address the issues does not need to be accommodated and can certainly let be «let go».

If we forget the fact that MayorFord is an elected official (who apparently can't be removed without an act of Parliament), he would, if a regular employee, have a right to be accommodated under provincial human rights legislation if he was addicted to illegal (or legal) substances and that addiction was the cause of his behaviour.

To what extent does an employer have to accommodate an employee's other work and personal commitments when those commitments are unrelated to grounds protected under human rights legislation?

Furthermore, in certain cases, such as alcohol or substance abuse, an employer may be expected to accommodate the employee since such substance abuse may be a disability that prohibits the employer from terminating the employee under the Human Rights Code or Canadian Human Rights Act.

Under changes to the Law Against Discrimination that took effect back in 2008, an employer has a statutory obligation to accommodate its employees» «sincerely held religious observance or practice.»

The new policy statement is especially topical for employers, who have a statutory duty under Ontario's Human Rights Code to accommodate employees with respect to disability to the point of undue hardship.

As with any request for accommodation of any ground protected under human rights laws, employers must consider each individually and, where appropriate, accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship.

All employer's, regardless of size, have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of employee's who have a disability and to give equal access to employees who are protected under the Ontario's Human Rights Code.

Separate from the above, employers have a general duty under human rights legislation to accommodate an unpaid leave of absence in the case of an employee who is unable to work because of a disability.

Under human rights law, an employer must accommodate an employee if a workplace policy or job requirement effectively discriminates against an employee on a prohibited ground.

Employers must recognize that human rights legislation places statutory limitations on the content of application forms, the pre-screening process, the interview, medical inquiries, and, under the employer's duty to accommodate persons with disabilities, even the right to hire an employee who is fit to perform the essential duties of the job.

However, the collective agreement cites obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code and accounts for situations where accommodating employees with disabilities may override other provisions of the collective agreement.

While employees may request accommodation for childcare and eldercare obligations under human rights legislation on the basis of «family status,» the full scope of these protections — and the extent to which employers must accommodate — is still under development.

To ensure employers comply with their duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation, an accommodation of disability policy and process should be established and communicated, explaining the employer's obligations and responsibilities, and the employees» rights and responsibilities under the law.

The employment standard augments the pre-existing obligation under the Ontario Human Rights Code to accommodate employees with disabilities.

This recommendation is a reflection of the confusion organizations are having in understanding the differences between the two legal obligations, and how the duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the AODA overlap and work simultaneously to protect employees with disabilities.

In short, where an employee injury qualifies as a disability, the employer's efforts to return the employee to work under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases are not sufficient to satisfy the employer's obligation to accommodate a disability under the Charter.

However, the Court found that there is no separate procedural duty to accommodate under the Act that can give rise to remedies where the employer can show undue hardship, and more specifically where the employer can meet the bona fide occupational requirement test set out in Meiorin (British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3):

When characteristics that are protected under human rights legislation come into play, employers are generally required to accommodate applicants and employees to the point of undue hardship.