Does an employer have to provide employees with access to running water? Suppose the water supply to the office block ceased, including tap water and bathroom facilities. The reason for the water supply discontinuing is unknown and there has been no communication on the issue. Could the staff go home, citing health and safety reasons?
Does an employer have to provide drinking water to their employees? Yes they do; consult the Welfare at Work publication by the HSE. It is also stated in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 schedule 3 s10. Can you simply leave if your workplace's water supply stopped working? Not necessarily, I would consider factors such as time the workplace has been without water, whether the employer was prompt in fixing the issue, how impactful to work the lack of water was, was free water accessible in a nearby area etc. These are things that would support your case if you wanted to take your employer to court. Though it doesn't say you wouldn't be allowed to leave work, I'm not sure if the pure fact that the water supply has stopped working would be enough to justify you simply leaving the premises.
Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life. You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable. The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers. After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.
Given a large database of email addresses that you can't prove have given consent to receive email, the only legal thing to do with it, is to (securely) delete it. (I am going to switch your question about a larger company to a bank: in the UK, big pharma is forbidden from advertising to individuals.) In principle the rules are the same for a huge bank and everything down to a self-employed plumber. In practice the plumber will be told "don't do that again" rather than fined. This case was treated under the Data Protection Act, which has a maximum fine of £500,000&nbsp;&ndash; so a big bank would probably have been fined more, but not necessarily much more. Under GDPR, fines are related to turnover, so the fine would be a lot bigger for a large bank. The incident is a year old now. Details here.
There is certainly no legal problem in asking if the tenants would be agreeable with the landlord discontinuing the security service. Even if it were in the lease, a lease like pretty much any contract can be changed by mutual agreement of all parties (unless there is a law preventing such a change, which is rare and I do not think will apply in this case). A more difficult question would be if the landlord would be within his or her rights to discontinue the service without asking the tenants first, since it is not in the lease. Since the property was advertised as coming with the service, it might be held that the continued service was reasonably expected by the tenants, and thus an implicit term of the lease. But since the landlord does not plan to take such unilateral action, that remains a purely theoretical issue. The landlord could offer the tenants a small rent reduction, perhaps one quarter of the amout that was being paid to the security firm, but there is no legal requirement to do so. As to whether asking for such a change would be &quot;rude&quot;, I don't think so, but that is a matter of opinion, and not really on-topic here.
The customers are able to leave, so there's no reason it could be a crime. Even if they weren't able to operate the lock themselves, they are presumably able to leave by asking a staff member. There is no way this could be remotely considered false imprisonment. Depending on the layout and size of the store and presence/lack of other fire exits, this might violate fire safety regulations.
In the UK, this is covered in the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2014, which amends the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010. Mandatory Licensing Condition 2 states: The responsible person must ensure that free potable water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available. Note that this applies only to premises which are licensed to sell alcohol.
Am I contractually obligated to follow that old handbook? Yes. Consider this: your employer gave you a copy of the handbook saying, "here is a copy of the staff handbook." Because of this, you know that the document in question is the staff handbook of your company, regardless of the fact that it bears an old name, and that the policies it expresses are part of the terms of your employment contract. If you were truly concerned that the document in question had no validity as the staff handbook, you perhaps should have expressed that concern by telling the person giving you the document that they appear to have given you the wrong document, because it bears a different name. By not doing this, you accept the terms in the document. On the other hand, if you do do that, you'll just irritate the people who have to produce a rebranded staff handbook so they can give you a copy.
Provincial jurisdiction may need to be specified. But in general, assuming you are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you can be terminated for any reason or even no reason, as long as the contract is followed, the actual or apparent reason is not discriminatory or otherwise illegal and the termination procedure meets the provincial employment standards. The labour law usually provide requirements for notice periods or severance pay (or both), unless there exists a just cause (e.g. extreme disregard of duty, theft, repeated insubordination, etc.; lack of funds on the part of the employer is not a just cause). shouldn't the employer be fully responsible for the salary coverage of his employee in the course of his contract? Yes, but the contract is saying it can be terminated under certain conditions, after which time you are no longer &quot;in the course&quot; of your contract. Termination due to lack of funds is usually not considered discriminatory or otherwise illegal. You remain entitled to wages for any period you have worked. Additionally, the employer needs to respect the required notice period or severance pay under the provincial employment standards related to termination with or without cause, regardless of the funding situation.