What Residents Should Know – In its most basic terms, moonlighting is a secondary job worked in addition to one’s main, primary job. The term relates to any kind of employment, not just medical employment. For residents, moonlighting may mean working as an independent physician, outside of the scope of your residency training program.
There’s also a difference between internal moonlighting (working in the same facility as your primary position) and external moonlighting (working outside of it). Some resident programs, such as HCA Healthcare, do not allow internal moonlighting. Yet others, such as The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston McGovern Medical School’s diagnostic and interventional imaging residency program, offer multiple internal moonlighting positions for residents in “good academic standing.” The American Medical Association (AMA) suggests additional financial assistance for residents could decrease the need for moonlighting, but residents in good standing should still have the opportunity to moonlight.
Individual residency programs may have policies about their residents’ moonlighting. For instance, George Washington University in Washington, DC, indicates residents’ moonlighting must not interfere with their ability to achieve the educational program’s goals.
It also limits moonlighting to residents who have met certain criteria. In addition to program-specific rules, the Accreditation Committee for Graduate Medical Education itself has capped the number of “combined educational and work hours for residents” at 80 hours per week. Any moonlighting must not interfere with the resident’s fitness or “compromise patient safety.” The process of finding medical moonlighting jobs can be somewhat difficult for residents to do on their own.
Some hospitals require a board-certified physician. Some places also require residents to have a permanent license, such as the Iowa Board of Medicine. The most consistent warning you’ll hear about medical moonlighting for residents is on the topic of malpractice insurance.
A new physician will want to make sure that any moonlighting jobs offer quality malpractice coverage. The resident should either learn what a good malpractice coverage consists of or work with an agency that provides coverage to its workers, as Staff Care does for its locum tenens providers. Jennifer F.
Tseng, MD, MPH, surgeon-in-chief at Boston Medical Center, and James Utley Professor and Chair of Surgery at Boston University School of Medicine, offered tips for residents in a May 2020 article in General Surgery News. She acknowledged that moonlighting can be tempting, but it can also interfere with your personal life or research.
She recommends doing no more than two moonlighting shifts per month. The sacrifice of free time has to be considered. “Are you willing to trade time with family and friends – or pillow and blanket – for moonlighting shifts?” asked Joshua S. Coren, DO, MBA, chair and professor of the department of family medicine and director of continuing medical education at the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Stratford, New Jersey.
“Residents could also miss educational programs or events at their primary hospital,” Coren said. Additionally, medical residents need to devote time to finding an ideal match after they finish their residency.
What is moonlighting in medical terms?
Residents are busy and underpaid. Moonlighting, working an additional job as an independent physician outside your residency, may offer a solution to one of those problems. Among other things, AMA policy on moonlighting notes that “increased financial assistance for residents/fellows, such as subsidized child care, loan deferment, debt forgiveness, and tax credits, may help mitigate the need for moonlighting.
“At the same time,” the policy says, “resident/fellow physicians in good standing with their programs should be afforded the opportunity for internal and external moonlighting that complies with policy.” So is moonlighting worth it? That’s going to depend on your unique circumstances. Here are some questions to ponder if you are considering moonlighting during residency.
Is moonlighting feasible for you?
What does moonlighting mean for workplace?
Moonlighting is when someone works more than one job at a time. According to USLegal, moonlighting usually refers to when a person holds a second job outside of normal working hours. Therefore, someone could work a normal 9-to-5 job as a primary source of income but work at another night job to earn extra money.
- Some employers welcome moonlighting because moonlighters are often cheaper and are more willing to work flexible hours than regular employees,
- Some employers may have policies prohibiting their employees from working additional jobs.
- These policies may stem from issues such as conflicts of interests, job performance, or misuse of an employer’s resources.
An example of a prohibition of moonlighting is a limitation on federal employees; federal employees cannot receive income from more than one federal government source.
What does moonlighting mean in nursing?
Moonlighting is defined as additional paid work while holding a primary paid job.
Is moonlighting illegal in the Philippines?
2. Burden on proof: employer –
|Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Mandagan
|G.R. No.160965, 21 July 2008
|hired on December 16, 1995, as Legal Assistant, with the rank of Assistant Manager, on probationary status while she was waiting for the results of the Bar examinations. was assigned to the corporate legal division where she performed research work, drafted legal opinions, served as a member of a management collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiating panel, and handled litigation, mostly labor cases. On June 16, 1996, after successfully hurdling the Bar examinations, was issued a regular appointment by,
|On June 2, 1998, issued a memorandum to requiring her to show cause in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for committing acts violative of the Code of Employee Discipline, to wit:
|1. Engaging in private law practice which is in violation of Section 6(a), Section 6(b)(26) and Section 11 of the Code of Employee Discipline;
|2. Using the company’s official address as your address for your private case which is not only in violation of Section 8(A)(1) of the Code on Employee Discipline but is prejudicial to the best interests of the ; and
|3. Representing a client who has a pending case against which is not only prejudicial to the interests of the company but is in violation of the ethics of your profession.
|x x x
|On June 4, 1998, in reply, wrote a strongly worded memorandum stating that she took offense at the manner of service of the office memorandum. According to her, the June 2, 1998 memorandum was merely a scheme intended to terminate her from employment. She said it was sparked by the incident on March 30, 1998 in which she was seen with then Corporate Comptroller, who was able to enter the compound despite being unauthorized to do so, he having filed a constructive dismissal case against,
|On June 9, 1998, submitted another memorandum denying the charges against her, claiming that the case she handled was only an accommodation, accepted by her upon the request and authority of then President and Mr. Ramirez, and that she was on leave at every scheduled hearing of the said case. She explained that she had the distinct impression that the lawyers of the Legal Division can take on accommodation cases. She cited as an example Atty. who, appearing as counsel for employee, was even provided with a service vehicle and considered on official time during hearings. She further explained that when a petition for the annulment of judgment was filed with the regional trial court (RTC) assailing the final and executory decision in the ejectment case in favor of Mr. Ramirez, she desisted from representing the latter. She said that she signed, as counsel of record, the petition for certiorari filed before the CA only for the purpose of terminating it. She also claimed that there was no conflict of interest between Ramirez’s labor and ejectment cases since the former was still pending resolution.
|, thereafter, conducted a clarificatory hearing.
|Later,, thru then President and Chief Executive Officer, sent a letter dated June 15, 1998 notifying her that her explanation in both memoranda and her statements during the clarificatory conference were inconsistent, unacceptable, and, by themselves, admission of the truth of the charges against her. As a consequence, her employment would be terminated effective at the close of office hours on June 19, 1998 for violations of the Code of Employee Discipline and for loss of trust and confidence.
|On October 28, 1998, initiated a complaint for illegal dismissal against and four (4) of its corporate officers.
|dismissed from employment because she was found guilty of the charges against her. It found to have engaged in private law practice in violation of Sections 6(a)(b)(26) and 11 of the Code of Employee Discipline. It also found her to have used the company’s official address for her private case in violation of Section 8(A)(1) of the same Code, which is also prejudicial to its best interests. Finally, it found her to have represented a client who had a pending case against, The pertinent sections of the Code are quoted hereunder:
|SECTION 6. Conduct and Behavior
|a. An employee’s conduct in the performance of his duties should be beyond reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety.
|x x x
|b. x x x
|26) Moonlighting or rendering services for another employer without the knowledge or approval of Management.
|SECTION 8. Company Property. –
|A. The following acts shall constitute violation of this section:
|1) Using Company property, equipment or materials for personal use or purpose.
|SECTION 11. Conflict of Interest. –
|a. The following act shall constitute violation of this section:
|1) Engaging, participating or involving oneself, directly or indirectly, in any transaction, undertaking, or business enterprise, where such engagement, participation, or involvement is in conflict with, or is improper or undesirable in the interest of the Company.
|The imposable penalties for the said offenses within a 12-month period are as follows: a) for moonlighting – a 5-day suspension for the first offense, a 15-day suspension for the second offense, and dismissal on the third offense; b) for the use of company property for personal purposes – suspension to dismissal, depending on the gravity of the offense; and c) for committing acts constituting conflict of interest – reprimand to dismissal depending on the gravity of the offense.
|According to, failed to substantiate her claim that her appearance in the ejectment case of Mr. Ramirez was upon his and former President Nazareno’s authority and directive, since she did not present any documentary evidence to prove the same. To support its position that was without the proper authority, it presented a handwritten note from Atty., former Head of the Legal Division of, stating that her appearance was without his prior authority and clearance.
|We must stress, however, that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just or authorized cause. Failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. This is consonant with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and reiterated in the Labor Code. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer. Likewise, the determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause is to be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.
|Thus, we agree with the CA that failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that was indeed guilty of moonlighting as defined under the Code of Employee Discipline, i.e., rendering services for another employer without the knowledge OR approval of management. In the manner in which the rule is phrased, since the words “knowledge” and “approval” are separated by the disjunctive OR, it is evident that even knowledge alone by the management of of the alleged moonlighting is tantamount to an implied approval and is sufficient to exonerate from liability.
|Therefore, it cannot be said that her appearance in the ejectment case of Corporate Comptroller Ramirez was without the knowledge of management considering that the s top officers were the ones who asked her to do so. Moreover, when she filed her application for leave of absence during one of her hearings, she specifically stated in the leave form that her absence was due to the filing of the ejectment complaint for Mr. Ramirez, and this application was approved by,
|We also find the handwritten note of the former head of the Legal Division, Atty., presented by to refute allegation of approval from the top management of, to be of questionable probative value in light of revelation that Atty. Abling himself appeared as counsel before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, in the criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.22 filed against the wife of, employee of, From the proceedings before the LA to its pleadings before this Court, has consistently kept silent about the matter.
|It may also be mentioned that proffered documentary evidence in the form of an exchange of correspondence showing that another member of the Legal Division, Atty., was hired by the very same Mr. Ramirez to handle his annulment case for a fee. Again, this Court notes that tried to dodge this allegation by simply claiming that “name-dragging” will not exculpate her from her misdeeds.
|The CA, thus, did not err in citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty.M. Ladaga because the June 2, 1998 Memorandum enumerated among the violations committed by the “private practice of law.” In the cited case, we held that “private practice of law” does not refer to an isolated court appearance but contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.
|As to the charge that made personal use of company property, the only evidence submitted by were copies of the complaint filed before the MTC, Parañaque City and copies of the pleadings and resolutions in the CA case, showing that her mailing address corresponded to the company’s address. As pointed out, there was no proof from as to her use of any other properties belonging to the company. It is safe to assume that received personal mail using the address of because, since it pertained to the same ejectment suit which the former top officers authorized her to litigate, the handling of the said case would be more convenient. As there is no express prohibition under the Code of Employee Discipline as to the use of the company’s address to receive personal mail, and, more importantly, there is no clear and convincing proof presented by as to the prejudice it suffered from such ‘s act, the charge of violation of the Code of Employee Discipline, Sec.8(A)(1) should fall.
Is it illegal to have 2 full time jobs in Philippines?
1. Employment is a contract – Why are we starting with something so obvious? Well, many people seem to skip this step whenever they have a labor law question. They forget to remember that they agreed to certain things when they took their job. Yes, the employment contract is like any other contract.
There are stipulations regarding your employment. There are dos and don’ts that you have to observe. Since you agreed to them when you signed, you have to comply to avoid being penalized. So, to our primary question, ask yourself: Is there a stipulation against having another job? There’s your answer. Now, say it does have such a clause or if there is none but your HR says that there is a Company Policy against it, you might be wondering whether that is valid.
That’s where the next concept comes in.
What is an example of moonlighting?
Moonlighting, in simple terms, means having a second job in addition to the main one. It could be a side hustle, a night job, or something someone takes up over weekends.
What happens in moonlighting?
Concept of Moonlighting-Is Moonlighting Illegal in India? – While Concept of Moonlighting is not illegal in India, it is important for employees to consider the potential consequences and to act in accordance with their primary employer’s policies and non-compete agreements,
What is a synonym for moonlighting?
synonyms for moonlighting –
cheating untrue adulterine deceitful double-crossing faithless false false-hearted fickle foresworn inconstant incontinent not true to of bad faith perfidious philandering recreant shifty snaky sneaking traitorous treacherous treasonable two-faced two-timing unchaste unreliable untrustworthy wicked
distraction diversion hobby recreation subsidiary leisure activity leisure pursuit second job side job side project
On this page you’ll find 62 synonyms, antonyms, and words related to moonlighting, such as: cheating, extracurricular, illicit, double-crossing, fast and loose, and immoral.
Is moonlighting illegal in the UK?
Is moonlighting legal in the UK? Moonlighting is not illegal in the UK.
What is a positive of moonlighting?
The Benefits of Moonlighting. It provides an extra source of income to the employees. They no longer want to depend on one source of income. These part-time or freelancing opportunities provide them with an additional source of income.
What is moonlighting in design?
So many business and homeowners desire to light their property at night. But many conventional light sources create a harsh glare that isn’t conducive to ambiance or curb appeal. An outdoor lighting method called moonlighting, has been rapidly gaining popularity. Here we review the many benefits of moonlighting your landscape. Moonlighting your landscape involves soft lights carefully placed very high in trees or structures about your property that mimic the gentle silvery glow of moonlight. This technique is less commonly used because it requires more effort and skill to pull it off successfully.
Is moonlighting in USA legal?
California business leaders weigh in on the growing trend of employees working two full-time jobs simultaneously During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rob Reeves recruited a young man for a marketing role within the technology sector. Although the applicant was working for a high-profile brand at the time, the terms of the new role were superior, and he was interested in switching positions.
- At least that’s what he told Reeves.
- According to the president and CEO of Redfish Technology, a Silicon Valley recruiting firm, the applicant quickly moved to the front of the line in the hiring process, eventually landing the role.
- About six months later, Reeves happened to be working on a contract with the applicant’s former employer and referenced the time he “poached” the employee.
“The hiring manager looked confused,” Reeves told HRD. “‘Him? But he never left?’ I bit my tongue and explained I must have been mistaken!” Read more: How to prevent ‘quiet quitting’ from infecting your company This was Reeves’ first encounter with moonlighting, which is when an employee works two full-time jobs simultaneously.
The controversial practice has picked up steam this year (with more than 92,000 members on an “Overemployed” Reddit community) due to the rise in remote work and historic inflation forcing workers to pick up extra gigs to stay afloat. In fact, more Americans are working two jobs now than ever before, according to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June, 426,000 Americans averaged a 70-hour workweek, which correlates with inflation hitting 9.1% – a 40-year high. “It’s actually quite common, especially when you’re dealing with remote workers,” Linda Shaffer, chief people and operations officer at Checkr, a San Francisco-based HR tech firm, told HRD.
- Remote work gives people the liberty to work from wherever they want, so it’s not uncommon for people to take on two jobs.
- This is especially true if one or both jobs allow flexible hours.” Unless employees have signed a non-compete agreement or exclusivity contract, there’s technically nothing illegal about the practice.
But moonlighting rubs some business leaders the wrong way, especially if employees burning the candle at both ends results in poor performance. “This phenomenon has been brought to my attention by plenty of HR managers who have lost employees because their work started to suffer,” John Ricco, co-founder of Atlantic Group, a New York City-based recruiting agency, told HRD.
“It has definitely become more of an issue since the pandemic and with so many more roles being done fully remotely. After all, employees will generally get away with a lot more unprofessional behavior while working at home than they would while working in an office.” Several heads of tech companies have spoken out against moonlighting.
In August, Rishad Premji, chairman of IT juggernaut Wipro, tweeted that the practice is “cheating.” Earlier this month, Infosys – India’s second largest IT services company – warned its employees that moonlighting will lead to swift termination, citing that dual employment isn’t permitted in its employee handbook and code of conduct, The Economic Times reported.
- There is a lot of chatter about people moonlighting in the tech industry.
- This is cheating – plain and simple.
- Rishad Premji (@RishadPremji) August 20, 2022 IBM has also joined the discourse, condemning the practice as “unethical.” “All of our workers when they are employed, they sign an agreement which says that they are going to be working full-time for IBM.
So, moonlighting is not ethically right for them to get into,” Sandip Patel, managing director at IBM India, told Mint. Ricco echoes the sentiment. “I’ve yet to encounter any employees who are able to give 100% of their best work to two different full-time roles at once, so both companies they work for aren’t getting their full return on investment,” Ricco says.
- I can see why people would want to take on two full-time jobs in such a bad economy, but from a business perspective, it definitely can’t be allowed to happen.” However, Shaffer argues there’s nothing wrong with moonlighting as long as employees are getting their work done.
- As long as they’re meeting their deadlines, not overworking themselves and still have time to rest and spend with their families, then there’s no problem,” Shaffer says.
“The issue would be when they start to neglect their responsibilities or fail to follow through with their commitments. That’s when it becomes a problem. We currently don’t have a policy against this, but we may consider implementing one in the future if it becomes an issue.” Read more: Should HR monitor employees’ social media accounts? If Jonathan Saeidian caught one of his employees moonlighting, the founder and CEO of Brenton Way, a Los Angeles-based digital marketing agency, claims he wouldn’t fire them.
“I would assess their productivity and efficiency within their current role and compare it against an established benchmark to see if they’re still being effective despite having another full-time role elsewhere,” Saeidian told HRD. “That’s all I care about. I don’t find it particularly advantageous to hold on to an employee’s every last hour and squeeze out all the value they can bring.
As long as they do what is expected of them correctly and efficiently, I wouldn’t have any problem.” “Of course, I would also make it clear that I have these expectations of them,” Saeidian adds. “I’ll get their commitment that if ever their other job comes into conflict with their job in my company, I would very much prefer if they prioritized my company.
- If I can’t get that assurance, then I will probably have to get them to make a hard choice.” While many employers have taken a hard stance, Reeves has had a change of heart.
- Remember that applicant who landed the marketing role while still employed at a major company? Apparently, he’s still juggling both jobs – and doing so adeptly.
“Prior to this experience, I would have considered such behavior an automatic firing,” Reeves says. “But now I’m not so sure. If your employee is able to meet the needs of two companies at once, maybe he’s a talent worth holding onto!”
What is unethical moonlighting?
Is moonlighting legal in India? – Overemployment, which is called dual employment in India, is technically permissible in the US and the UK from a tax perspective. A second employment in the UK could alter a worker’s tax status, but it wouldn’t be expressly noted as such to the payroll department of the first employer and would probably go unreported in larger organisations.
The US tax system is simpler since it is built on the idea of self-assessment and voluntary reporting. A person may work more than one job in India without breaking the law. However, a person with a similar set of jobs could give rise to concerns about a violation of confidentiality because many employers include such restrictions in their employment agreements in addition to prohibitions against holding down multiple jobs.
Also Read: Soaring attrition, employee cost overload put IT companies in a bind Moonlighting could be considered cheating if an employee’s contract calls for non-compete and single employment, which is the situation with the majority of conventional employment contracts.
However, it is not cheating if the employment contracts do not have such a clause or provide relaxations. Under the Factories Act, dual employment is prohibited. However, in some states, IT companies are exempt from that rule. Before looking for side jobs or starting a business, it is crucial for employees to carefully check their employment contract with their principal job to ensure compliance with any moonlighting policies.
Do you think it is ethical to have more than one job? Go ahead. Choose your option here: #Moonlighting in the tech sector has been a hot topic. It refers to the practice of taking up other assignments while working with an organisation. Is it ethical? — Mint (@livemint) August 29, 2022 Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint.
Is moonlighting illegal in Canada?
Workplace Today Strategies – Corporate Executives Who Moonlight Beware
| Corporate Executives Who ‘Moonlight’ Beware Alan Riddell and Kyle Van Schie Today, an ever-increasing number of Canadians are choosing to work at more than one job, either out of financial necessity or to pursue a hobby which they enjoy. This past May, Statistics Canada reported that there are now approximately 946,000 Canadians who hold down more than one job. For many of those Canadians, the second job is running a part-time personal, or family, business after-hours or on weekends. Employees who do this must be careful that their part-time job does not put them into a potential conflict of interest with their full-time job; otherwise, their full-time employer may have just cause to terminate them. In June, this was vividly highlighted when the CBC terminated the employment of Evan Solomon, the high profile journalist and host of “Power and Politics”, after it was revealed in the Toronto Star that he was working part-time in a family art brokerage business in his free time. In working after hours – or moonlighting – as a part-time art broker, Mr. Solomon earned significant commissions for helping to facilitate art deals with celebrities such as Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and Blackberry co-founder Jim Balsillie, whom he had met through his work at the CBC. The CBC fired Mr. Soloman on the grounds that his private business activities as an art broker had allegedly violated the CBC’s written conflict of interest and ethics policies. What does the law say about employee moonlighting? Canadian employment law does not specifically preclude employees from moonlighting on the side by working for themselves or for another business after hours, unless this contravenes their employer’s code of conduct or employment contract, or involves an inherent conflict of interest with the employee’s day job. Where that moonlighting contravenes the code of conduct or the contract, or where there is an inherent conflict of interest, the employer may have just cause to terminate the moonlighting employee, without notice or pay-in-lieu of notice. When will moonlighting involve an inherent conflict of interest? Employees may be in a conflict of interest where they work after-hours for a competitor of their employer, or for someone with whom their employer does business. All employees have a duty to act in good faith and to be loyal to their employers. Working for a competitor or supplier, without their employer’s knowledge or authorization, may potentially put them in breach of that duty. Conflicts of interest can also arise in other ways, such as when an employee exploits a business opportunity which he learned of while working for his employer, or where he uses proprietary or confidential information which he acquired while in the course of his job, without obtaining prior authorization. In addition, conflicts of interest can arise where the employee uses the employer’s time or resources to further his own private business affairs, or alternatively where his private business results in absenteeism, persistent late arrival, lower productivity or scheduling issues which affect his employer. A vivid illustration of this is provided by the recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Patterson v. The Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 BCPC 120 (CanLII). That case involved a bank employee who had been dismissed when she refused her employer’s request that she quit her existing part-time job as a real estate agent. The Court found that her part-time real estate work placed her in a potential conflict of interest with her banking job because she stood to earn commissions from the purchase of new homes by her prospective real estate clients who could be seeking mortgages from the bank to buy the very homes which she was helping them acquire. The Court determined that her real estate work put her in breach of the bank’s conflict of interest policies. It also determined that she was using her employer’s time for her own business interests, as she was handing out business cards to bank clients during regular working hours at the bank. As a result, the Court concluded that by failing to quit her part-time real estate job, she gave the bank just cause to terminate her employment, without notice or pay-in-lieu of notice. Even where the employee’s moonlighting has not led to an actual conflict of interest, the mere potential of a conflict can amount to sufficient just cause to terminate the employee. This is because even a potential conflict of interest can justifiably cause an employer to lose trust and confidence in the employee. By way of example, if a bank employee grants a loan to an individual with whom she has some financial involvement, the bank may reasonably lose confidence in her even though it suffers no actual loss. However, not every potential conflict of interest between two jobs will give rise to just cause for dismissal. The potential for conflict must be clear and unambiguous. It is largely irrelevant whether the employee herself understands there to be a conflict of interest. Instead, the court will look to the following factors to determine whether or not a potential conflict of interest gives rise to just cause for dismissal: the employee’s education, honest belief, position with the employer, the seriousness of the conflict, whether the employer has specifically prohibited the outside work, whether there was any dishonesty, and whether the employer’s resources were used in the secondary business. When will moonlighting contravene the employer’s code of conduct or employment agreement? Nowadays, many employment contracts contain a ‘no-conflict’ clause expressly prohibiting employees from engaging in certain other forms of employment. A breach of that clause can constitute just cause for termination of the employee’s employment. In addition, employers often require their employees to sign codes of conduct containing provisions which explicitly limit their secondary employment options. If signed by the employees, for good and valuable consideration, such provisions become an integral part of their employment contract. Should the employees subsequently contravene those provisions, the employer may have the legal right to terminate their employment without notice or pay-in-lieu of notice. What will likely happen to Evan Solomon? Should Mr. Solomon grieve his employer’s decision to dismiss him, an arbitrator would first need to determine if his art brokerage activities contravened the CBC’s conflict of interest policies, as alleged by the CBC in the media. If such contravention of the policies did indeed occur, then the arbitrator would have to decide whether the termination was an appropriate form of discipline in view of all the relevant circumstances of Mr. Solomon’s situation. It is distinctly possible that the arbitrator might choose to reinstate Mr. Solomon to his job at the CBC, and substitute a lesser form of discipline, for two reasons. Firstly, the wording of the CBC’s Code of Conduct, forbidding employees to “use their positions to further their personal “interests.” is vague and potentially ambiguous, thereby making it possible for Mr. Solomon to argue that no reasonable employee would conclude that it prohibited him from selling art after-hours. Secondly, it is not yet clear that Mr. Solomon’s art brokerage activities ever had the potential to conflict with his work as host of Power and Politics, either by influencing his choice of whom to invite onto the show or what questions to ask of them. Based on the evidence revealed thus far in the media, it would appear that neither Mark Carney, nor Jim Balsilie appeared on Power and Politics either during, or after, the time Mr. Solomon was selling them art. As a result, his moonlighting activities may not have had any significant potential to conflict with his duties as host of his show. Ultimately, whether the CBC is ordered to reinstate Mr. Solomon to his job will depend partly on (i) whether any of his immediate superiors at the CBC were previously aware of his after-hours business dealings, and (ii) whether he ever tried to conceal, or mislead the CBC about, those business dealings. If it is eventually revealed that one or more of his supervisors were aware of his private business activities and did nothing to stop him, then the CBC will likely be deemed to have acquiesced to Mr. Solomon’s breach of the CBC’s conflict of interest policies – a factor that would almost certainly guarantee his reinstatement to his former job. On the other hand, if the arbitrator determines that he was dishonest with the CBC, this would likely result in the dismissal being upheld because deliberately misleading one’s employer, on a material fact, is a breach of trust, which is integral to the employment relationship.
As an employer, what steps can you take to reduce potentially harmful moonlighting by your employees? As an employee, what steps can you take to reduce the risk of being terminated as a result of your private business activities after-hours? Alan Riddell and Kyle Van Schie are Ottawa lawyers who specialize in labour and employment law and who work at the law firm of Soloway Wright LLP.
As an employer, there are several ways you can prevent your employees from engaging in private business activities which conflict with your company interests. These include: (i) Inserting a ‘no conflicts’ clause into your company’s employment agreement template; (ii) Drafting conflict of interest guidelines for your employees; and (iii) Creating a code of conduct which clearly defines what outside business activities your employees may and may not engage in. To be enforceable, such documents must be clear and unambiguous. They must also be clearly communicated to, and then agreed to, by the employees. To be legally binding on current employees, it may be necessary to provide fresh financial consideration to those employees at the time that they sign the code of conduct, or guideline, or revised employment agreement. This is because in Canadian employment law, significant changes to an employee’s employment obligations, even if done with the employee’s consent, are not generally enforceable against him in the absence of fresh consideration. Given the inherent difficulty of enforcing codes of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines, a prudent employer will enlist the help of an experienced employment lawyer to assist with the drafting and execution of such documentation. A wise employee who wants to engage in personal business activities on the side will discuss these with his employer. While the law does not require employees to disclose their personal business activities to their employer, it is prudent to do so. Such a discussion may quickly satisfy the employer that there is no serious potential for a conflict of interest to arise between the two jobs. Moreover, once the employee has fully and truthfully disclosed his personal business activities to the employer, and the employer does not forbid him from continuing with them, the employer will be precluded by its inaction from subsequently claiming that those activities amounted to a conflict of interest, and that they constitute just cause for dismissal.
|Warning : No part of workplace.ca may be copied or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of the Institute of Professional Management. Workplace Today®, HR Today®, Recruiting Today®, and Supervision Today® are trademarks of the Institute of Professional Management. For permission to reprint,,
Workplace Today Strategies – Corporate Executives Who Moonlight Beware
Is it legal to work 12 hours a day in Philippines?
Working Hours – Regular working hours in the Philippines should not exceed more than eight hours a day. “Working hours” include the time employees spend on duty or at the prescribed workplace or when they are permitted to work. Short rest periods during work time also count as hours worked.
Government employees Managerial staff Field personnel The employer’s family members dependent on them for support Domestic helpers People providing personal service Workers paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor
Is it legal to work more than 8 hours a day in Philippines?
The House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading this week a bill seeking to institutionalize the compressed work week scheme to promote business competitiveness, work efficiency and labor productivity. House Bill 6152 aims to increase the normal work hours per day under a compressed work week scheme, amending Articles 83, 87 and 91 of Presidential Decree No, 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
- Under the bill, the amendment to Article 83 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended shall read as follows: “Art.83.
- Normal hours of work.
- The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight hours a day except in cases where the enterprise adopts a compressed work week scheme, but shall not exceed 48 hours a week.
This is without prejudice to firms whose normal work week is five days, or a total of 40 hours based on the normal work day of eight hours. “Employees shall be permitted to complete their working hours on a compressed work week scheme whereby the normal work week is reduced to less than six days but the total number of normal work hours per week shall remain at 48 hours.
Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred shall hold regular office hours for eight hours a day, for five days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six days or 48 hours, in which case, they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least 30 percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day.
Health personnel shall include resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. Article 87 of the same law is likewise amended to read as follows: “Art.87.
- Overtime work.
- Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day or 48 hours a week provided that the employee is paid for the overtime work, an additional compensation equivalent to the regular wage plus at least 25 percent thereof.
- Work performed beyond eight hours or number of hours under a compressed work week scheme on a holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to the rate of the first eight hours or a number of hours under a compressed work seek scheme on a holiday or rest day plus 30 percent thereof.” Article 91 of the Labor Code is also amended to read as follows: “Art.91.
Right to weekly rest day. – “(a) It shall be the duty of every employer, whether operating for profit or not, to provide each of the employees a rest period of not less than 24 consecutive hours after every six consecutive normal work days. In the case of a compressed work week scheme, a rest period of not less than 48 hours but not more than 72 hours, as the case may be, shall be provided to the employees.
- B) The employer shall determine and schedule the weekly rest day of the employees subject to collective bargaining agreement and to such rules and regulation as the Secretary of Labor may provide.
- However, the employer shall respect the preference of employees as to their weekly rest day when such preference is based on religious grounds.” The bill mandates the Secretary of Labor and Employment to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) within 90 days for its implementation.
Rep. Mark Go (Lone District, Baguio City), one of the authors of the bill, said at present, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has allowed companies to go on a compressed work week schemes. “These arrangements give employers and employees flexibility in fixing hours of work compatible with business requirements and the employees’ need for a balanced work-life,” Go said.
- Other authors of the bill are: Reps.
- Diogracias Victor Savellano (1st District, Ilocos Sur), Eleanor Bulut-Begtang (lone District, Apayao), Ma.
- Lourdes Aggabao (4th District, Isabela), Jesus Celeste (1st District, Pangasinan), Christopher De Venecia (4th District, Pangasinan), Rodolfo Fariñas, (1st District, Ilocos Norte), Ronald Cosalan (Lone District, Benguet), Napoleon Dy (3rd District, Isabela), Leopoldo Bataoil (2nd District, Pangasinan), Strike Revilla (2nd District, Cavite), MarlynPrimicias-Agabas (6th District, Pangasinan), Luisa LlorenCuaresma (Lone District, Nueva Vizcaya), Micaela Violago (2nd District, Nueva Ecija), Randolph Ting (3rd District, Cagayan), Ariel Casilao (Party-list, ANAKPAWIS), Teodoro Montoro (Party-list, AASENSO), Leo Rafael Cueva (2nd District, Negros Occidental), Edwin Ong (2nd District, Northern Samar), Vicente Veloso (3rd District, Leyte), EdcelLagman (1st District, Albay), Peter Unabia (1st District, Misamis Oriental), Yedda Marie Romualdez (1st District, Leyte), Vilma Santos-Recto (6th District, Batangas) and Julieta Cortuna (Party-list, A TEACHER).
What will happen if I have 2 jobs in the Philippines?
There is no Philippine Law that precludes you from taking on multiple jobs, regardless if they are on the same industry or not. But you are bound by your employment contract with your employer unless there is none. You should read it’s contents first. Most jobs have non-compete clauses but some don’t.
What happens in moonlighting?
Concept of Moonlighting-Is Moonlighting Illegal in India? – While Concept of Moonlighting is not illegal in India, it is important for employees to consider the potential consequences and to act in accordance with their primary employer’s policies and non-compete agreements,
What does moonlighting mean etymology?
moonlight (v.) “hold a second job, especially at night,” 1957 (implied in the verbal noun moonlighting ), from moonlighter “one who takes a second job after hours” (1954), from the notion of working by the light of the moon; see (n.). Earlier the verb had been used to mean “commit crimes at night” (1882), from moonlighter in reference to members of organized bands that carried on agrarian outrages in Ireland.