Multi-Jurisdictional Human Resources
I’d like to start this blog by thanking all of you for your patience during my summer sabbatical. It was a genuine luxury to have been able to devote concentrated time to my doctoral dissertation, and I look forward to providing updates in time. For those of you who may not know, my research is in connection with the work experiences of female vocational animal rights activists in Canada and the United States. More to come on this . . .
As I re-enter my consulting practice and my blogging, I was asked a wonderful question about international human resources. The specific question was:
“A lot of organizations have international offices now, what are the HR implications? For example, a friend in the USA gets the average USA holidays and vacation, but their colleagues in Scandinavia get twice as many bank holidays and 4 weeks of vacation. How do you navigate that inequity?”
Before I begin to answer this important question, I would like to first draw your attention to the title of this blog. Note that I did not use the title International Human Resources, but instead I used the title Multi-Jurisdictional Human Resources.
The reason I did that is because even within countries, the same challenges in connection with holidays, vacations, and countless other human resources matters can apply.
Let’s use Canada as an example. Employees who work for organizations in our Movement are provincially (as opposed to federally) governed. That means all aspects of their employment such, as but not limited to, hours of work, time away from work, paid vacations, bereavement leaves, medical leaves, maternity and parental leaves, and other similar matters are governed based on provincial employment standards, which are different from province to province. To expand on our example by homing in on vacation entitlement in just two Canadian provinces, an employee living in Ontario is entitled to two weeks of paid vacation per year which jumps to three weeks of paid vacation per year once they have worked for the same company for five years. In Newfoundland, however, an employee is not entitled to three weeks of paid vacation until they worked for the same company for fifteen years.
So, what is an employer to do?
Well, there are a few options. I will outline what they are, and I will also provide my own recommendation based on my over three decades of leading human resources practices in large international organizations and in consulting to organizations of all sizes in several countries. The options that I lay out are neither right nor wrong. What the organization chooses to do, however, like all aspects of human resources, is a reflection of the culture and values of the organization.
Option 1 – Stick to the Law
This option, as the name implies, relies exclusively on the employment laws of the jurisdiction in which the employee lives. So, if we continue to use the example of vacation entitlement, and we apply it to our fictional organization that I’ll call Animal Help, the employees working for Animal Help who live in Ontario will begin their employment getting two weeks of paid vacation time, the employees who work for Animal Help and live in Newfoundland will also get two weeks of paid vacation to start, and the Scandinavian employees of Animal Help will get four weeks of paid vacation. After five years of employment, the Ontario employees will get three weeks of paid vacation, the Newfoundland employees will still be getting two weeks of paid vacation, and the Scandinavian employees will still be getting four weeks of paid vacation.
While at first blush this option may seem unfair, I would argue that it is not. The reason for this is that matters of employment include what can seem like a limitless list of considerations. These range from some of what I listed above (e.g. maternity and parental leave, etc.), to issues of payroll taxes, taxes for expenses, medical benefits, and other offerings such as tuition reimbursement, matters related to disciplining employees, if and how employees can be terminated, other legal considerations such as human rights, access to services, health and safety obligations, and other legal matters such as the right to unionize.
The idea of creating an equal playing field for all employees can be arduous task, and one we will explore when we look at Option 2.
Before we jump to Option 2, it is also important to note that in this option, if an employee moves from one jurisdiction to another, regardless of whether it was their choice or at the request of the employer, that employee would become subject to employment laws of their new jurisdiction.
Option 2 – Play The Comparison Game
The second option is to engage in what I’m simply calling The Comparison Game. This would require that the organization, Animal Help, as noted above, begins by creating a comprehensive list of all aspects of the employment relationship. This would include matters that are governed in law as well as those that are provided to employees on a gratuitous basis such as dental care, reimbursement for eye glasses, and any other benefit provided by Animal Help.
Once the list is created, the organization would then need to populate it with the legal requirements for each employee based on their jurisdiction. From there, Animal Help would need to choose the most generous offering in each case and apply it across the board for all employees. The reason that it would need to be done in this way is to ensure that Animal Help did not run afoul of the law for any of their employees. So, in the case of vacation pay as noted in our example, all employees would need to be provided with four weeks of paid vacation.
As you may have surmised by the title that I gave to this option, it truly is a “game”, and one that in my experience is almost impossible to win. I would encourage you to envision a massive spreadsheet with the various considerations listed in column A, and then each column would need to be populated for each jurisdiction. Plus, every time a new employee started whose jurisdiction had not already been contemplated, it would have to be added, and it might mean that a particular benefit would have to be amended for all employees depending on the law where they live.
I’ve written a previous blog titled Key Differences between American and Canadian Human Resources Practices that outlines some of what would need to be considered just between these two countries. Now we’d have to add in several more countries!
In other words, keeping up could be a full time job, and even with that, creating equity may still not be possible.
Let’s use just one example of this with Animal Help. Animal Help not only has employees in Canada and Scandinavia, but they also have employees in the United States. Animal Help has decided that they want to ensure that all employees are treated the same, and as such, they started to create their spreadsheet. Across the top of the spreadsheet, they listed each of the provinces where they have employees in Canada, the states in the United States, as well as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The first item on their list was payroll taxes followed by medical benefits. In Canada, the federal tax rate can be as high as 40% depending on an employee’s income, which is much higher than it is in the United States. Does that mean that Animal Help needs to make Canadian employees whole for their net income? If we examine medical care, the majority of medical care for Canadian employees is free, while medical care for employees in the United States is not, and can be very expensive. Does this mean that Animal Help needs to ensure that their employees in the United States have the same level of medical coverages as their Canadian employees?
And, this spreadsheet (and possibly the policies of Animal Help) would need to be updated every time someone is hired from a new jurisdiction, and every time any aspect of the law changes in any of the jurisdictions.
I think that we can all see where this going, and that we can also agree that Option 2 is virtually impossible to do.
So, is there another option? Yes, Option 3!
Option 3 – The Hybrid Version and My Preferred Option
This third option is not only the one I prefer, it is the one that I have relied upon in my previous in-house human resources leadership roles, throughout my time as a partner in an employment and labour law firm in Canada, and the one that I recommend to the clients that I work for now in our Movement.
In this option, the organization, Animal Help, would choose a few elements of the employment relationship that are most reflective of their key values, and would apply these elements consistently for all employees regardless of jurisdiction (as described in Option 2). These elements would be chosen based on the mission, vision, values, and guiding principles of the organization. For example, in the case of Animal Help, they might choose the following: anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, educational reimbursement, and paid vacation. For each of these Animal Help would adopt the most generous definition, and apply this definition as a policy for all employees regardless of where their employees lived.
Let’s examine each of these in a bit more detail.
Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination
The law regarding these aspects of employment differ greatly. One of the most progressive laws can be found in the province of Ontario, in Canada. As such, when Animal Help sought to create a policy and program to address harassment and discrimination, they applied the practices in Ontario to their entire organization.
To learn more about how to implement a progressive Respect in the Workplace Policy and Program, please see this blog, and also feel free to watch a webinar I facilitated on the topic of respectful workplaces. While this webinar was created for the animal sanctuary movement in Canada and the United States, the content applies to any organization in our Movement.
Educational Reimbursement
While reimbursing employees for educational courses they take on their own time is not a legal matter, it is a very important human resources matter, and reflects the values of the organization. For Animal Help, it is something that they encourage. As such, Animal Help decided to apply a fulsome reimbursement program to all of their employees regardless of where they lived.
Paid Vacation
Paid vacation is treated in law in some jurisdictions but not in others. That said, Animal Help feels strongly that all employees need to have time away from work to rest. As such, after reviewing the law in the jurisdictions in which they have employees, they decided to apply the most generous, the law in Scandinavia countries, which provides four weeks paid vacation, to all employees.
In this hybrid model, all other aspects of the employment relationship are treated based on where the employee lives.
Conclusion
Regardless of what your employer has chosen to do, the most important thing that they must do is to be transparent. You should clearly understand what they are doing, and why they are doing it. If you do not understand how your employer is handling multi-jurisdictional issues in your workplace – ask them.
All of this should be available clearly in writing for you, and must be applied consistently!
This blog is provided for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind. No one should act, or refrain from acting, based solely upon the materials provided on this website, any hypertext links or other general information without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice.
The intention of this blog is to promote the longevity and engagement level of the activist community within the Animal Advocacy Movement (AAM). The majority of the advice will be geared towards employees within the AAM in Canada and the United States, but may be applicable to other countries.
Krista is the Executive Director of For The Greater Good where she consults with animal protection organizations across North America on matters of organizational development and governance. In addition to holding five degrees and designations in human resources, including a master’s degree in organizational development and leadership, she is pursuing her doctorate focused on the employment experiences of animal rights activists in Canada and the United States. Krista first joined the Animal Advocacy Movement as the VP of Mercy For Animals in Canada where she led twelve undercover investigations into factory farms and slaughterhouses. Krista also served as the President of the Board for Happily Ever Esther Farm Sanctuary for over five years, also now serves on several other Boards including One Protest, The Rancher Advocacy Program, Egg-Truth, and Dairy-Truth. Krista is also a member of Womxn Funders in Animal Rights. Krista is a peer reviewer for the Journal of Critical Animal Studies. Prior to joining the Movement, Krista founded a boutique employment and labour law firm in Toronto where she consulted to employers across Canada and the U.S. for a decade, and before that she spent fifteen years in human resources including as the Vice President of HR for one of the largest software companies in the world.