Medical Marihuana In The Workplace
In the last few years, statistics show that an increasing number of licences to possess medical marihuana have been granted. Beginning in 2001 medical marihuana was controlled through the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR), under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as established by Health Canada..
Since March 31, 2014, under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), licences are no longer granted by Health Canada. Practitioners, who previously had the role of declaring medical conditions, are now enabled to prescribe medical marihuana.
One of the many issues to be considered in the wake of these changes is the impact on the employment sphere: How should employers deal with employees who use prescribed marihuana in the workplace? What measures should be put in place? Should parameters be set in order to supervise the use of medical marihuana in the workplace?
On 24 February, the Russian State Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) adopted in the first reading a draft law introducing amendments to the Russian Code on Administrative Offences (the Draft Law) that would increase the amount of the fines imposed for violating Russian data protection laws and introducing a differentiation of the relevant offences’ types. Notably, the Draft Law does not introduce any separate fine for violating Russia’s new Data Localization Law, although there is still a possibility that this could be modified as the legislative process progresses.
As of today, the liability that may be imposed on legal entities for violating the general rules regulating the collection, storage, use, or distribution of personal data amounts to RUB 10,000 (currently approx. USD 160). The Draft Law’s explanatory note states the drafters’ opinion that the current liability clause does not effectively protect data subjects’ personal data, and that the increased fine amounts are intended to ensure the protection of data subjects’ rights.
Employers may undertake a background check of a candidate’s criminal background by seeking what is known as a criminal background certificate from the National Police Academy (NPA) before or after extending an offer. However, because Korean law prohibits the release of actual criminal records to third-parties for reasons unrelated to a criminal case, such as employment-related requests, employers are not able to obtain these directly or through a third-party (background screening provider). Additionally they’re not able to verify the accuracy of the certificate from the NPA or any information provided by an applicant. As such it must be applicant driven. From a notice and declaration perspective a candidate’s consent is required to obtain a criminal background certificate. An offer letter, signed by an applicant, stating that obtaining such a certificate is a condition of employment should provide adequate proof of consent.
Bad Hires Incurring Significant Costs for Businesses
HR professionals are finding it tough to hire capable employees, with one in 10 new recruits regarded as a ‘poor hiring decision’ according to research by Robert Half UK.
The recruitment specialists’ new report, Management Insights: How to avoid common hiring mistakes , found that the costs associated with bad hires can have a significant impact on a business, with HR directors reporting that the main problems include a loss of productivity (52%), a reduction in staff morale (30%) and substantial financial ramifications from salaries, training and loss of performance.
In the study of over 200 HR executives 70 percent revealed that they had hired someone who did not meet their expectations, and 91 percent reported identifying skilled workers a challenge.
Albany commission bans the box