Documentary research by Bank of Canada terminologists shows that employment is quite limited when it comes to employees: it is mostly limited to Canada, where the terminology of personnel management has often been established for an English reason, thus promoting the presence of levels in French. This can be seen almost exclusively in translated texts, particularly in the texts of the civil service or international organizations such as the World Bank. It is not proven in reliable unilingual sources. It is also noted that the echoon is sometimes made by fidelity, and the verb retain by the binder, in some Canadian and foreign sources. For example, the term “loyalty” is used by the Canadian government`s development centre to “make employees loyal to the organization.” It is mentioned as an echo-equivalent in an article in the newspaper Le Monde and is used on the websites of the National Assembly and the Senate in France. We therefore find that the notion of fidelity (the action of loyalty) is not synonymous with maintenance action. For employees, the term is more like “don`t let go, stay with you.” Maintaining may be the result of the activity of the link, but these two terms are not the same. A company may be more likely to retain employees, but the two activities are not necessarily related. On the other hand, it is sometimes able to keep non-faithful employees longer because they cannot find other jobs or for other reasons (seniority, age). The English language distinguishes between loyalty and echo. In an article by Lee Roberts entitled Mentoring May Develop Both Loyalty and Retention, it says: “By providing mentoring, companies not only build employee loyalty, they may increase productivity and employee retention” (4). This quotation indicates the existence of two different English terms. A non-detention clause does not always protect against actions or liability.
Some states do not respect harmless, nebulous or overly broad agreements in the language. In addition, the clause may be considered non-aigale if the signatories invoke a strong case of condemnation or seduction at the signing of a non-detention clause. The first situation described above is a unilateral non-detention clause. The contractor is the only one who requires to be considered harmless. The second example is a reciprocal clause. The owner also seeks damages from the contractor. The non-detention clause is not an absolute protection against actions or liability. The “stop-damage” clause may be unilateral or reciprocal. By a unilateral clause, one party undertakes not to make the other party liable for the damages or injuries suffered. By a change clause, both parties agree to keep the others unscathed. We will find that the equivalents proposed above are not interchangeable; You are by no means an absolute synonym.