--0000000000007f4c24062df5cfb3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you want to keep the background check cost in then I'll defer to you all= . On the non-solicitation clause I reviewed the file and it looks like we strategically took out the penalty to give us a shot of trying to enforce the provision as it is at least defensible without the penalty. Preference is to keep this as is. Tim, any thoughts on the above? On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:31=E2=80=AFAM Joey Taylor wrote: > Hey Steve and Kathryn, > > 1. Background Checks: We have always charged the caregivers for them in > Quebec. > 2. Non-Solicitation: It's more of a scare tactic. If a caregiver sees a > $10,000 penalty they are less likely to approach a client in my opinion? > > Thanks, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:05=E2=80=AFPM Kathryn Nester > wrote: > >> I'll let Joey and Tim speak to the background check and solicitation >> clause but yes I believe as part of the iCIMS process for caregivers and >> corp EE's we are sending an offer letter first. The offer letter didn't >> come into process until iCIMS did. >> >> thanks, >> Kathryn >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:55=E2=80=AFAM Steve Koyanagi >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Kathryn. I have a couple of quick thoughts. >>> >>> On the background check deduction if we're not doing it anywhere else i= n >>> Canada should we standardize and not do it for Quebec? Can you remind m= e >>> why this is a historical practice only in Quebec? >>> >>> On the non-solicitation, the penalty is unenforceable so perhaps we're >>> okay leaving it as is. Tim/Joey, thoughts on that one? I believe we >>> strategically deleted it previously. >>> >>> Another big picture question is are we always doing an offer letter >>> first then sending an employment agreement? What is our standard HR pro= cess >>> in Canada? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 8:48=E2=80=AFAM Kathryn Nester >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I can get these updated so long as you are okay with the verbiage stev= e? >>>> >>>> Just to clarify, is the solicitation clause for the >>>> employment agreement, and the background check information is for the = offer >>>> letter? Is that right? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Kathryn >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:42=E2=80=AFAM Steve Koyanagi >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looping in Kathryn from HR as this is within HR's purview. >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Timothy Thomas >>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:44=E2=80=AFAM >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Missing Info on Contract >>>>> To: Steve Koyanagi , Joey Taylor >>>> joey.taylor@thekey.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GM gents, >>>>> >>>>> Could you please get together to iron out and address Melissa's >>>>> concerns with our MTL documentation? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Melissa Rus >>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:41=E2=80=AFAM >>>>> Subject: Missing Info on Contract >>>>>