Emerging Challenges in the University Sector: - Hicks Morley

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Retiree Benefits – Vesting RevisitedAcreman v. Memorial University, 2011 NLCA 55• Historically, University paid 50% of premiums butbegan subsidizing the premiums in full in 1978• In 1993, University unilaterally implemented agradual payment schedule to bring the costsharing back to 50/50 by 2002• Retirees commenced a class action claimingUniversity obliged for pay 100% of premiumsEmerging Challenges in the University Sector:Staying a step ahead – March 28, 201228
Retiree Benefits – Vesting RevisitedAcreman v. Memorial University, 2011 NLCA 55• Not plain and obvious action would not succeed• Retirees’ entitlements were communicated invariety of ways – letters, in-person seminars• Some received no communication at all…• Still class was certified by the CourtEmerging Challenges in the University Sector:Staying a step ahead – March 28, 201229
Page 6: IntroductionSocial media benefits:
Page 10 and 11: Social Media Issues: Students & Par
Page 12 and 13: Legal ToolsNot-so-helpful precedent
Page 14 and 15: Tips1. Review/revise computer use p
Page 16 and 17: Pension and Benefits:Changing Lands
Page 18 and 19: Reducing Pension Benefits• Signif
Page 20 and 21: Reducing Pension Benefits• Defini
Page 22 and 23: Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Al
Page 24 and 25: Quinn v. New Brunswick, 2011 NBQB 1
Page 26 and 27: Reducing Pension Benefits• Quinn
Page 30 and 31: Retiree Benefits - Vesting Revisite
Page 36 and 37: Budget News - Pension• Reform mea
Page 38 and 39: Budget News - PensionJSPPs (cont’
Page 40 and 41: Budget News - PensionUniversity Pla
Page 42 and 43: Pension and Benefits:Changing Lands
Page 44 and 45: Highlights• Executive Compensatio
Page 46 and 47: Executive Compensation• Base sala
Page 48 and 49: Collective Bargaining• No wage fr
Page 50 and 51: Collective Bargaining• To increas
Page 52 and 53: Communicating During BargainingMich
Page 54 and 55: Collective Bargaining 2012 - ETFO A
Page 56 and 57: College Academic Bargaining• Prop
Page 58 and 59: Employer Can Communicate During Bar
Page 60 and 61: Cannot Circumvent Union• Kingston
Page 62 and 63: Context Is Everything• Forinteck
Page 64 and 65: Communicating During BargainingMich
Page 66 and 67: Duty to Respond - General Principle
Page 68 and 69: Case Study 1: Nelson v. Lakehead Un
Page 70 and 71: Case Study 3: Miraglia v. Universit
Page 72 and 73: Harassment and Discrimination Polic
Page 74 and 75: Accessibility for Ontarians with Di
Page 76 and 77: IAS: Select Standards - 2012 and 20
Page 78 and 79:
IAS: Select Standards - 2015 to 202
Page 80 and 81:
AODA - Project Planning• over 20
Page 82 and 83:
ACADEMIC FREEDOMCustody and Control
Page 84 and 85:
Arbitration• The Faculty Associat
Page 86 and 87:
Results1) Adjudicator held that the
Page 88 and 89:
ACADEMIC FREEDOMCustody and Control
Page 90 and 91:
Overview1. Solicitor/Client Privile
Page 92 and 93:
1. Solicitor/Client Privilege: Prin
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
2. Rules of Professional Conduct: R
Page 100 and 101:
2. Practical Example of Rule 2.03
Page 102 and 103:
2. Practical Example of Rule 2.03
Page 104 and 105:
2. Rules of Professional Conduct: R
Page 106 and 107:
3. Managing Communication Pitfalls
Page 108 and 109:
3. Managing Communication Pitfalls
Page 110 and 111:
3. Dublin v. Montessori, 2006 (ON S
Page 112 and 113:
3. Dublin v. Montessori, 2006 (ON S
Page 114 and 115:
3. Kaganovsky v. 2057057 Ontario In
Page 116 and 117:
3. Kaganovsky v. 2057057 Ontario In
Page 118 and 119:
3. Lana v. University of Alberta, 2
Page 120 and 121:
4. Who is the client?• Privileged
Page 122 and 123:
4. Who is the client?• Where the
Page 124 and 125:
4. Who is the client?• Difficulti
Page 126 and 127:
4. Who is the client?• Issues tha
Page 128 and 129:
4. Who is the client?• Does in-ho
Page 130 and 131:
Solicitor/Client Privilege in theUn
show all

Emerging Challenges in the University Sector: - Hicks Morley

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?