Bill C-65 – which comprises an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (Harassment and Violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act 2017 – recently received royal assent. Among other things, the act will amend the Canada Labour Code and expand the obligations of federal employers, particularly in relation to workplace harassment and violence.
The new provincial government has been active in reshaping provincial employment and labour laws and responsibilities. In addition to passing Bill 47, the Making Ontario Open for Business Act 2018, the government has filed new regulations which will lower penalties for contravening the posting and record-keeping requirements of the Employment Standards Act. Further, the government's 2018 Fall Economic Statement outlines several initiatives and pledges which will be of interest to Ontario employers.
A recent British Columbia Supreme Court's decision is a cautionary tale for employers that terminate employment first and ask questions later. It is a reminder that failure to conduct a proper investigation into employee misconduct can undermine an employer's case for termination for cause. When considering the appropriate level of discipline, employers should consider all mitigating and aggravating factors before deciding on the appropriate discipline.
The requirement for employees to mitigate their damages following termination is generally helpful for employers during wrongful dismissal litigation, but this may not be the case when it comes to fixed-term employees. Employers that wish to use fixed-term employment agreements should ensure that they have airtight early termination provisions in their contracts and consider specifically obliging employees to mitigate.
Recent amendments to the Labour Code, brought about by Bill C-44, have been overshadowed by the dramatic changes to provincial labour and employment laws earlier in 2018. While big changes – including a significant increase in minimum wages in several provinces – have garnered the most attention, federally regulated employers must consider the code's amendments, which will affect the way in which certain complaints brought against such employers are launched and adjudicated.
The federal government recently introduced Bill C-86, the Budget Implementation Act 2018. In addition to introducing long-anticipated pay equity legislation, the proposed legislation would make significant changes to the labour standards in Part III of the Canada Labour Code. Some of the proposed changes are unsurprising given the government's past statements. Other changes are unexpected and, if enacted, would have a major impact on both non-union and unionised employers.
For many years, even since the prohibition of mandatory retirement in Ontario, it has been permissible to deny benefit, pension, superannuation or group insurance plans or funds to employees over the age of 65 due to an exception in the Ontario Human Rights Code. However, a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found this exception to be unconstitutional.
The Ontario government recently introduced Bill 47 – the Making Ontario Open for Business Act 2018 in the provincial Legislative Assembly. Once passed, the bill will make substantial changes to the province's employment standards and labour relations legislation, including reversing most of the changes contained in the previous government's Bill 148.
Much ink has been spilled over a recent decision by the Public Service Commission of Canada on the topic of discriminatory interview practices, in which the commission found that the plaintiff had been discriminated against when she was denied a role due to her pregnancy. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for employers not only with regard to the types of question that may be asked during interviews, but also with regard to comments that may be made before an interview.
Despite agreeing with a trial judge that a casino employee's suspension without pay was a constructive dismissal, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's award on the question of damages and examined whether the employer had been obliged to offer alternate employment. The court's decision is a reminder of the principles governing suspension without pay during an investigation into employee misconduct.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal recently confirmed a district council's policy that restricted the manner in which inappropriate communication was processed, following a human rights complaint that the council's action had constituted censorship and been based on the fact that the complainant was a gay man. The tribunal confirmed that the policy was based on the council's obligation to provide employees with a workplace free from harassment and not the complainant's sexual orientation.
Authorisation for the use of medical marijuana is not a free pass to use marijuana at work. Employers must go through an accommodation process to determine whether the use of marijuana pertains to a human rights-related need. A recent arbitration award explores how far an employer must go to discharge its duty to accommodate a medical marijuana user in a safety-sensitive job when the levels of impairment at work cannot be measured.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has examined for the first time how the concept of an 'independent contractor' should be applied when determining the status of an 'artist' under the Status of the Artist Act. The board also examined the intended scope of a universal bargaining unit and confirmed that this may vary depending on the context. The decision has opened the door to a more contextual interpretation of an 'independent contractor' in certain circumstances.
The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal recently held that student status and the fact that students work during the summer to pay for their studies must be equated to a social condition protected under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. According to the tribunal, a collective agreement clause that allocates a lower wage to students could constitute discriminatory treatment because it represents a distinction based on two prohibited grounds of discrimination: social condition and age.
Employees in common law provinces who are offered a job in the sale of business context may not necessarily be required to accept or be subject to a maximum common law notice period. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has determined that there is no upper limit on notice periods and that the duty to mitigate does not require employees to accept employment with a purchaser of a business where the offer would significantly affect them going forward.
Since the Supreme Court decision in Machtinger v HOJ Industries Ltd, it has been well established that employers in common law provinces can contractually limit the amount of common law notice or pay in lieu to which an employee may be entitled on termination. However, the case law on drafting such clauses is ever evolving and the courts are wary of enforcing these provisions, except in the clearest cases.
Workplace violence is a serious concern for employees and employers alike. Employees expect safe workplaces and employers have a concomitant duty to ensure their safety. Therefore, it is critical for employers to understand how to minimise workplace violence and respond if it arises. Syncrude's handling of this situation in Belyea v Syncrude Canada Ltd is exemplary and offers key lessons on how to address workplace aggression.
The Canadian workers' compensation system is funded entirely through employer premium payments. Generally, employers which have more claims or claims that have higher associated costs will pay additional monies to their respective compensation board in the form of increased premiums or premium surcharges. As such, employers should establish an effective health and safety management system to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses in the first place and actively manage claims should they occur.
The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the decisions of the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Quebec Superior Court declaring Sections 76.3, 76.5 and 103.1, Paragraph 2 of the Pay Equity Act invalid on the grounds that they are discriminatory and thus contrary to Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Supreme Court, rather than ending systemic wage discrimination, the impugned provisions "place barriers along the path to equal pay for women".
Key employees, which are crucial to the success of any organisation, are entrusted with authority and autonomy to execute their duties. A recent case concerned a key employee who broke this trust by profiteering for several years from kickbacks while the employer paid inflated prices for supplies. When the fraud was discovered, the employee was fired. However, termination alone may be cold comfort to an employer that has suffered losses from fraud. Can anything else be done?