In the 2001 case of McKinley v. B.C. Tel, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a contextual approach is required in order to determine whether there is just cause for termination of employment.   A recent wrongful dismissal case involving receipt of pornographic material illustrates how the contextual approach will be applied by courts.

In February 2013, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick upheld a lower court finding in the case of Asurion Canada v. Brown and Cormier,  to the effect that dismissal without notice was a disproportionately severe penalty for receiving pornographic emails at work.  At the time of termination, Cormier had been with Asurion for 8 years and was a call centre supervisor.  Brown was employed by Asurion for 9 years and was vendor payables specialist.  Both men had a good employment history with the company.  Both men, unfortunately, also had a mutual friend who liked to send them pornographic emails.

During the period from mid May to mid July 2010, Cormier and Brown were sent over a dozen unsolicited emails from their friend.  The emails were promptly sent to home email accounts and deleted.  They were not shared with anyone at work. When Asurion became aware of the emails in July as a result of its network monitoring system, both men were dismissed immediately due to breach of the company’s policies and breach of trust.

While the company did have a policy which prohibited “accessing, transmitting, receiving or storing discriminatory, profane, harassing or defamatory information”, the court found that the policy was not reasonable given that: (i) ”receiving” information does not involve a positive act; and (ii) the emails in question were unsolicited.  More importantly, the court confirmed that the response of the company was not proportionate to the actions of the employees.  In particular, these longstanding employees had unblemished records, none of the emails were shared with fellow employees, and the images attached to the emails fell within the category of “perfectly legal adult pornography” and were not in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Asurion had an employee handbook with a comprehensive Computer Use and Harassment policy.  The company’s employees were required to read the company’s policies and there was some suggestion that they were reminded of the Computer Use policy each time that they logged onto their work computers.  The company went even further, and used a network monitoring system in order to ensure that the policies were being complied with.  Ultimately it was all for naught, as the policy was found to be unreasonable and the application of it was disproportionately severe when viewed through the lens of the employees’ years of service and specific actions or inactions in the case at hand.

This recent decision serves as a good reminder that any time a termination for cause is being considered, the employer should consider not just the offending actions of the employee, but the other relevant circumstances of the employee’s employment.

Asurion Canada Inc. v. Brown and Cormier, 2013 NBCA 13 (CanLII)

In a March 2013 decision that is likely to be challenged in the courts, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the reinstatement of an employee a decade after she went on disability leave, together with loss of wages from June 2003 until the date of reinstatement.

In a 2012 decision in  Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, adjudicator Joachim found that the respondent school board had discriminated against the employee by failing to accommodate her disability.  In particular, in 2001 she developed an anxiety disorder as a result of the highly stressful nature of her job, and went on long-term disability.  She was subsequently assessed as capable of gainful employment in 2004.  From mid 2003 onwards however, the school board failed to take any steps to offer her available alternative work, even though similar jobs were advertised and the employee underwent job hardening in positions for which the employer was seeking employees.

In March 2013, adjudicator Joachim rendered her decision in relation to the remedy for this case of discrimination.  She found that because: (i) the employee had commenced her initial complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission only 4 months after her employment was terminated; (ii) the delay was largely at the hands of the Commission; and (iii) the employee had confirmed that she was seeking reinstatement when her application was subsequently filed with the Tribunal, there was no good reason to not order reinstatement due to the passage of time.

As a result, the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee despite her absence from work for almost a decade.  In addition, the employer was ordered to pay the employee’s lost wages, benefits, expenses and pension contributions over that period of time, which amounted to over $400,000 (subject to any employment insurance and related deductions).  Finally, adjudicator Joachim awarded the Applicant $30,000 as compensation for the injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Despite the likelihood of an appeal, this is an important decision as it illustrates the potential liability associated with a failure to return an employee to work after his or her disability leave.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440 (CanLII)

An employee of a drive test centre has been jailed for accepting a bribe from a driving instructor, who has also been jailed.

Harvey Aitchison worked as a driving examiner for DriveTest Centre, the agency that tests Ontario drivers, in Oakville. He accepted bribes from Cyril Julius Marques, who was the owner and driver instructor of a driving school, to guarantee that that Marques’ driving students passed their Ministry of Transportation road examination.

Marques would charge $450.00 to his driver students, $300.00 of which he would give to Aitchison.  Marques would keep the remaining $150.00.  The bribing came to light after Marques offered a DriveTest coordinator a pack of cigarettes if she assigned Aitchison to test his student.  The coordinator blew the whistle.  Aitchison resigned from his job.

Both Aitchison and Marques pleaded quilty to accepting a bribe, contrary to section 426(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That section provides:

426 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an agent or to anyone for the benefit of the agent — or, being an agent, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person, for themselves or another person — any reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for doing or not doing, or for having done or not done, any act relating to the affairs or business of the agent’s principal, or for showing or not showing favour or disfavour to any person with relation to the affairs or business of the agent’s principal

Aitchison claimed the he accepted the bribes out of frustration towards his employer; Marques said that his actions were caused by his financial problems and his wife’s health problems.

The court sentenced Aitchison, a 64-year-old man with no criminal record, to a jail term of 4 months to be followed by 2 years of probation. The court sentenced Marques, a 58-year-old man who also did not have a criminal record, to a jail term of 90 days, which he was permitted to serve intermittently given his employment status and his wife’s medical needs.  The court stated that their corrupt scheme was a breach of trust offence that put the public at real risk of harm: sending unqualified drivers onto the roads.  The court pointed out that, ”Public corruption is of significant concern to the citizens of Canada and general deterrents and denunciation must be the dominant sentencing factors.”

While there is no indication in this decision that the employer was charged or implicated in this case, employers that knowingly permit employees to accept bribes could also be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code: subsection 426(2) of the Criminal Code provides that, “Every one commits an offence who is knowingly privy to the commission of an offence under subsection (1)”.

R. v. Aitchison, 2013 ONCJ 74 (CanLII)

On March 5, 2013, the Ontario government introduced new legislation which, if passed, would create three new job-protected leaves.

The Employment Standards Amendment Act (Leaves to Help Families), 2013, proposes new leaves that build on the existing Family Medical Leave under the ESA.  They are as follows:

Family Caregiver Leave - up to 8 weeks of unpaid leave for employees to provide care and support to a family member with a serious medical condition.

Critically Ill Child Care Leave – up to 37 weeks of upaid leave to provide care to a critically ill child.

Crime-Related Child Death and Disappearance Leave - up to 52 weeks of unpaid leave for parents of a missing child and up to 104 weeks of unpaid leave for parents of a child that has died as a result of a crime.

If passed, the leaves would allow parents and other family caregivers to provide care and support for loved ones without fear of losing their jobs.  These leaves are in addition to the current Family Medical Leave, which is available when a family member has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death occurring within 26 weeks.  A doctor’s note would be required for the Family Caregiver Leave and the Critically Ill Child Care Leave.

Complementing the new federal Helping Families in Need Act, employees covered by the Critically Ill Child Care Leave and the Crime-Related Child Death and Disappearance Leave would be eligible to apply for federal Employment Insurance benefits.

The Ontario’s government’s news release and “backgrounder” may be accessed here.

The British Columbia government introduced legislation on February 28, 2013 that once passed will make Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) available to employees in the province. Features of the PRPP structure that may offer significant appeal to B.C. employers include:

• Reduced administrative requirements – PRPPs will not be administered by B.C. employers, but rather by licensed entities, such as insurance companies
• Low-costs realized through the pooled nature of the investments and central administration
• Employer choices – PRPPs are not mandatory for B.C. employers, and once a PRPP is offered employer contributions are optional
• Tax advantages for employers that are not available for other forms of workplace retirement savings plans
• Employers not exposed to underfunding issues – the PRPP will function on a defined contribution basis, which limits employers’ funding obligations
• Recruitment and retention advantages of providing a new option for retirement savings

The PRPP legislation is aimed to enhance pension coverage in B.C., where according to the Ministry of Finance News Release, approximately two-thirds of the workforce has no access to a registered pension plan.

Information about the federal government’s rules regarding PRPPs can be found here.

FMC will continue to monitor the legislation and provide updates on the implementation of PRPPs in British Columbia and across Canada. For more information please contact Colin Galinski at 604-443-7133 or colin.galinski@fmc-law.com.

Trish-Ann Tremblay had entered into a settlement agreement with her former employer, 1168531 Ontario Inc., on September 13, 2011, with respect to the Human Rights Application she had filed against 1168531 Ontario Inc.. The settlement agreement contained a standard confidentiality provision requiring parties to maintain the confidentiality of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement.

The next day after the mediation, Ms. Amy Lalonde, manager with the Respondent Company, was informed by a colleague that Ms. Tremblay had posted messages on Facebook about the mediation and settlement. In fact, the first message was posted during the mediation session itself:

“Sitting in court now and _______ is feeding them a bunch of bull shit. I don’t care but I’m not leaving here without my money…lol”.

After the Minutes of Settlement were signed, Ms. Tremblay posted the next message as follows:

“Well court is done didn’t get what I wanted but I still walked away with some…”

Shortly thereafter Ms. Tremblay posted the following message:

“Well my mother always said something is better than nothing…thank you so much saphir for coming today…”

While Ms. Tremblay argued that there was no proof that she was talking about the Respondents as she did not mention them by name, the Tribunal held that it was clear from the date of the postings and the comments made that she was referring to the mediation. The Tribunal found that Ms. Tremblay had breached the confidentiality provision of the Minutes of Settlement. However, the Tribunal found that the Respondent Company had also breached the Minutes of Settlement by not paying Ms. Tremblay the settlement amount.

The Tribunal ultimately ordered that the amount owing to Ms. Tremblay under the settlement agreement be reduced by $1,000. In determining the appropriate remedy, the Tribunal took into account that Ms. Tremblay did not disclose the amount of the monetary settlement in her Facebook posts. The Tribunal also considered the relatively public nature of Facebook, especially in the small community in which the applicant and respondent company resided.

When mediating issues of a sensitive nature, employers should consider including confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that specifically prohibit disclosing terms of settlement on social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.

Tremblay v. 1168531 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 1939 (CanLII)

Did you know that the Ontario Ministry of Labour has a Q&A on how to deal with natural disasters in the workplace?

The Q&A, which can be found at the link listed below, covers issues such as whether or not an employee can be forced to take vacation days in the event of a natural disaster which prohibits him or her from working, or whether an employee must be paid if he or she is told to not come to work during the disaster.

Apart from basic issues covered in the Q&A, there are a number of other things to be aware of in the event of a natural disaster.  The Emergency Management Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 (Ontario) permits the Premier and Cabinet to introduce legislation intended to govern emergencies such as natural disasters.  In addition, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Ontario)  provides for unpaid emergency leave for declared emergencies such as natural disasters, which is different than the standard emergency leave to deal with an ill or injured family member.

While an employer may not wish its employees to come to work in the event of a natural disaster, there may also be situations where certain employees are in fact required to work precisely because of the natural disaster, even if the workplace is under quarantine.  The ESA specifically permits certain employees to work in those situations, if their skills are required due to an emergency.  Likewise, although employees may rely on the Occupational Health & Safety Act (Ontario) (“OHSA”) to refuse to work if they are concerned that the condition of their workplace may jeopardize their health or safety, exemptions to OHSA require certain essential employees to work notwithstanding those conditions.

In addition to the above, there are a number of other pieces of provincial and federal legislation which work together to answer some of the key questions about how to deal with a natural disaster in the workplace.  Whether that disaster relates to health issues (eg. SARS, H1N1), loss of the workplace premises or something else, this combined legislation will help employers determine the appropriate response to disasters, and it is recommended that employers be proactive about understanding their obligations so that they are prepared in the event that disaster strikes.

To access the Ministry of Labour’s Q&A, click here.  For more information about all of the workplace issues involved in the event of a natural disaster, a more thorough discussion can be found here.

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal today in what is one of the most highly-anticipated cases for the pension and insolvency bars pending before the courts. In Indalex (Re) 2013 SCC 6, the court provided clarity regarding some key questions relating to the governance of an employer-administered pension plan during a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The judges split on some of the issues, but here is our brief round-up:

1. Priority. The full amount of a deficit in an Ontario pension plan will rank ahead of secured creditors (as a deemed trust), provided that the plan is wound up and the employer is not in bankruptcy. The SCC upheld the Court of Appeal on this issue.
2. DIP Facilities Can Come First. A judge may order that court-approved debtor-in-possession financing in a CCAA proceeding ranks ahead of pension deficit deemed trusts. The SCC upheld the Court of Appeal on this issue.
3. Fiduciary Duties Owed. Employers who administer pension plans owe a “fiduciary duty” to the members of the plans. This means that such employers must manage conflicts of interest. These conflicts will arise when there is a substantial risk that the employer-administrator’s representation of the plan members would be materially and adversely affected by the employer-administrator’s duties to the corporation. In these circumstances, separate representation (among other things) might be appropriate to protect plan members. The SCC narrowed the scope and content of the fiduciary duty that the Court of Appeal had imposed.
4. Remedies. Any remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty must be tailored to the nature of the breach. The remedy of a “constructive trust”, which provides the plan members with a proprietary interest in specific assets of the employer corporation, will only be available if there is a direct link between the breach of fiduciary duty and the specific assets. The breach must have resulted in the assets being in the corporation’s hands. The SCC overturned the Court of Appeal on this issue.

Lawyers will be picking through the lengthy judgments in this decision for months to come. It has significant implications for Canadian corporate lending, insolvencies and restructurings.

Look for FMC Law’s in-depth analysis of this case in the coming days.

This post was co-authored by Jane Dietrich and Timothy Banks.

The subject of what can and can’t be charged to a pension plan has always been an important one for employers because of the often high costs related to administering a pension plan.

On January 23, 2013, the Ontario pension regulator (the Financial Services Commission of Ontario), issued a new policy regarding administrative fees and expenses payable from a pension fund. The new policy, Policy A200-101, replaces four existing policies on the topic and is accessible at http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/pensions/policies/active/Documents/A200-101.pdf.

Although clarification regarding expenses chargeable to pension funds was provided in late 2010 with the addition of a new section 22.1 in the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”), Policy A200-101 provides additional guidance that is welcome.

Policy A200-101 reiterates that fees and expenses payable from a pension fund must:

1. be reasonable;
2. relate to the administration of the pension plan or the administration and investment of the pension fund; and
3. not be prohibited or otherwise provided for under the documents that create and support the plan or the fund, or under the PBA or related regulations.

It is the plan administrator’s responsibility to determine whether or not an expense fits the criteria to be properly charged to a pension fund. So it is up to the plan administrator to decide whether amounts are appropriate and reasonable, and to find out whether there are provisions in the pension plan documentation that restrict the charging of expenses.

Since each pension plan is unique, the PBA and regulations do not set out the specific nature or type of administrative expenses that can be paid from a pension fund. However, Policy A200-101 provides examples of the types of expenses that would usually be considered appropriate administrative expenses, such as certain actuarial fees, trustee and custodial fees, and investment management fees. It also provides examples of expenses incurred that would not usually be properly chargeable to a pension fund. These typically include fees incurred by a person acting in the role of plan sponsor, collective bargaining agent or employer.

Many types of fees and expenses incurred by a plan sponsor or administrator can be complex and difficult to categorize. FMC can help you identify proper fees and expenses that can be charged to your pension fund. Please feel free to contact one of our Pension & Benefit experts and we would be pleased to assist.

Although human resources professionals are not always recognized for their efforts during a corporate acquisition, the work which they do behind the scenes can often make the difference between an acquisition succeeding or failing.  The following is a brief summary of key issues for HR professionals to stay on top of, long before an acquisition is ever contemplated, during the due diligence phase and right through to closing.

There are two types of transactions which can result in the purchase and sale of a business – a share purchase and an asset purchase.  In a share purchase, the corporate identity of the target company does not change and as a result, the employees remain employed by the same purchaser after closing.  Unless new employment agreements are negotiated with the purchaser, the employment terms and conditions of those employees will not change on closing.  In an asset purchase however, only certain assets of the target company are purchased and the employees are therefore generally terminated by the target company unless they agree to accept new employment with the purchaser.

Keeping Your House in Order:

All too often, proposed acquisitions fall through after the purchaser becomes aware of potential employee liabilities which it will have to assume in the event of an acquisition.  As an HR professional, you can assist with minimizing those liabilities long before an acquisition is being contemplated, by ensuring that: (i) well-drafted employment agreements are properly entered into; (ii) the company is protected with any necessary confidentiality, intellectual property and restrictive covenant agreements; (iii) there are no significant wages, vacation pay and overtime pay accruals; (iv) employee claims and complaints are kept to a minimum; and (v) mandatory statutory obligations are complied with (eg. WSIB registration; compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act; compliance with the Pay Equity Act).  When potential employment liabilities are kept to a minimum, it greatly reduces the risk of a purchaser walking away from a deal due to the added costs of correcting the liabilities.

Due Diligence:

HR professionals should be aware of the fact that even in an asset purchase, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 contains successor employer provisions.  In particular, section 9 of the ESA states that if a purchaser hires an employee of a vendor within 13 weeks of closing, the purchaser will be deemed to have taken on the employee with all of his or her prior years of service with the vendor.  Therefore, although the inclination may be to think that the purchaser in an asset deal can “fix” employment problems hand-in-hand with the hiring of employees on closing, sometimes employees will balk at going to a new employer if they are not being hired on similar or better terms to those which governed their employment with the vendor.  In this regard, it is often helpful for the vendor to work with the purchaser during the due diligence phase in order to determine who will be provided with offers of new employment and what the new and continuing terms of employment should be.

HR professionals in Ontario should also be aware of the fact that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) does not yet have a business transaction exemption.  Although employee personal information is not generally caught under PIPEDA, it can be subject to PIPEDA when employee personal information is being collected, used or disclosed for commercial purposes such as an acquisition.  In order to ensure that there are no personal information breaches in connection with the acquisition of a company, if you work for the vendor it is wise to get the employees to sign a consent to the disclosure of their personal information at the time that they are first hired, as to do so in the midst of a transaction can tip employees off before the transaction becomes publicly known.  Whether or not the employees have signed consents at the time of hire, it is also wise for the vendor and the purchaser to enter into confidentiality agreements with respect to employee personal information which may be disclosed in relation to the transaction.

Closing:

As the closing of the transaction approaches, it is particularly important for HR professionals for both the vendor and the purchaser to try to work together to determine such issues as who will take responsibility for accrued vacation, whether releases will be sought from employees who are part of an asset purchase, whether and what type of new employment agreements will be offered to those employees who are remaining on, and ensuring that employees who are not remaining on are properly terminated at or prior to closing.  As well, there is often a need for certain key employees to remain on for a limited period to assist with transition work, and thought often needs to be given to whether those employees should be provided with a special retention bonus agreement or whether the expectation is that they will simply work out their notice of termination period doing transition work.

As always, it is important for HR professionals to obtain legal advice from an employment law specialist in conjunction with the above steps.  Together, they can make the difference between a difficult acquisition and a successful one.

In a cautionary tale for employers, a jury in Windsor, Ontario awarded $1.4 million in damages to a former Wal-Mart employee who alleged that she had been constructively dismissed after being subjected to intentional infliction of mental suffering by her former manager.

The jury award included $1.2 million in punitive damages and damages for mental distress against the employer, and an additional $250,000.00 in punitive damages and damages for mental distress against the manager. The former employee established that the manager had punched her on the arm on two occasions, and had subjected her to profane and insulting mental abuse. Those allegations were that the manager had called the employee “a [expletive] idiot” in front of her co-workers, and that the manager had made the former employee count skids in front of co-workers in order to prove to him that she could accurately count.

A link to the Windsor Star article on the court decision is attached: http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/10/10/walmart-must-pay-1-4-million-for-mistreating-employee/

The employer has already appealed the jury’s verdict to the Ontario Court of Appeal, calling the award “…wholly disproportionate and/or shockingly unreasonable.” This is not surprising, given that this award would set a new high-water mark for punitive damages in a wrongful dismissal case. (It appears that the jury may have based its award roughly on the amount that the former employee, who is currently 42 years of age, would have earned had she remained employed in her position until age 65. This figure had been raised by the former employee’s counsel in his closing submissions, although the trial judge had specifically instructed the jury not to consider that figure.)

Although, in our view, it is likely that the jury award will be set aside or reduced on appeal, this decision does underscore how important it is for employers to have a clear policy against incidents of workplace violence and harassment and to take prompt action to address such incidents when potential allegations of this nature come to light.

A director of six Ontario companies has been sentenced to 90 days in jail after those companies systematically ignored orders to pay wages issued by the Ontario Ministry of Labour. The Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 does allow individuals to be fined up to $50,000.00 and/or to be imprisoned for up to 12 months if convicted of an offence, although the imposition of jail time for employment standards violations has been exceedingly rare.

However, the facts involved in this situation were particularly egregious. Sixty-one complaints had been filed by employees of the six companies for unpaid wages, all of which were substantiated. Over a period of approximately two years, 113 separate orders to pay had been issued against the six companies and the director to pay some $125,000.00 in unpaid wages. The six companies and the director failed to comply with any of these orders to pay. In addition to imposing the jail time, the Ontario Court of Justice imposed fines of $280,000.00 plus the required 25% Victim Fine Surcharge, for a total fine of $350,000.00. Although company directors that are convicted of employment standards offences are still most likely to be fined if convicted of offences under the Act, Ministry of Labour prosecutors will certainly use this decision as a strong deterrent against employers – and directors – that systematically flout their obligations.

See the Ontario Ministry of Labour press release – http://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2012/11/director-jailed-and-companies-fined-after-failing-to-pay-employees.html

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has announced that it will focus its proactive  inspections for 2012-2013 on workplaces where there is a history of employment standards violations, where young and/or vulnerable workers are employed, and/or where large or increasing portions of the Ontario workplace are employed.

Among the specific sectors identified for targeted proactive workplace inspections in the coming year, are the following:

• auto mechanics
• building services, including security, parking, cleaning and food services
• car dealerships
• fast food restaurant franchises
• gas stations
• hotel/hospitality
• private schools
• temporary help agencies

As always, it is a good practice to be prepared for any surprise workplace inspections which may come the way of your business.  For further information on how best to prepare, please contact FMC Law’s employment and labour group.

The scope of an employer’s right to discipline and terminate an employee for indiscreet or inappropriate remarks in social media is far from settled. Given that an employee’s social media activities have the potential to “go viral” (or at least be seen by hundreds, if not thousands of people), organizations must assess whether the activities of employees outside of work have the potential to negatively affect, even transiently, the reputation and goodwill of the organization.

Currently, the legal battle over an employer’s legitimate interest in an employee’s use of social media is being played out among employees who are relatively junior within organizations and may, justifiably or unjustifiably, believe that their actions are not under the gaze of their employers.

This post compares two recent cases from the United States and the United Kingdom with an earlier case from Canada.

Don’t Make Fun of the Customers

In a recent U.S. National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) decision, Karl Knauz Motors, Inc. (Re), the NLRB considered whether a car dealership could terminate a salesperson for comments on Facebook about an accident that involved a customer of the dealership. The customer had driven into a pond and the salesperson posted photos on Facebook with sarcastic comments. The employer argued that the comments violated employee handbook rules that required employees to be “courteous, polite, and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees” and which prohibited conduct that was “disrespectful” or involved the “use of profanity or other language which injures the image or reputation” of the employer. In addition, not long before the post about the customer, the same salesperson had posted photos and comments criticizing food that had been served at a sales event at the dealership. The tenor of the earlier post was that the dealership should have served better food given the profile of the sales event.

The salesperson claimed that he was terminated in violation of the protections afforded by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which, among other things, provides rights to participate in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The NRLB has previously issued decisions and guidance documents this year warning that social media policies must not stifle workers from communicating about workplace conditions as this would offend section 7 of the NLRA.

An administrative law judge concluded that the postings about the car accident did not fall within section 7 of the NLRA because it was posted by the employee on his Facebook page and not discussion took place on Facebook about the post. By contrast, the comments about the food at the sales event were made in the context of an exchange among employees on Facebook. The administrative law judge concluded that the comments were related to the dealership’s image at the event and this could affect the working conditions of the employees by affecting sales.

In a split decision, the NLRB upheld the decision of the administrative law judge. The employee’s termination for the comments about the customer was not protected by the NLRA. However, the NLRB ordered that the employee handbook rules were overbroad and not enforceable.

The dissenting NLRB member concluded that the requirement to be courteous did not violate section 7 of the NLRA and held that:

“[r]easonable employees know that a work setting differs from a barroom, room and they recognize that employers have a genuine and legitimate interest in encouraging civil discourse and non-injurious and respectful speech.”

Say What You Will About Gay Marriage

In the Smith v. Trafford Housing Trust, a housing manager of the Trust read a news article online regarding gay marriage and posted the link to his Facebook account with the comment “an equality too far”. The manager’s Facebook privacy settings had been set so that his posting could be viewed by his “Friends” and also “Friends of Friends”. This prompted an exchange with one of the employee’s colleagues at work, which was quite tempered but suggested that those gays and lesbians “have no faith and don’t believe in Christ”. The employee was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a finding of gross misconduct. The employee was offered a demotion to a non-managerial position in view of the length of his service.

According to the decision of the English High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), the Trust had over 300 employees. The court found that at the material time, the employee listed that he was a manager at the Trust. His profile stated “What can I say – it’s a job and it pays the bills”. He described his religious views as “full on charismatic Christian.” His profile and wall pages also listed that he was a manager at the Trust. In putting the post into context, the court held that it was one of a number of posts about “sport, food, motorcycles and cars.”

The court concluded that a reasonable reader of the manager’s wall would not have understood him to be a spokesperson for the Trust. The court rejected that any loss of reputation by the Trust would arise in the mind of a reasonable reader. The manager’s Facebook wall “was primarily a virtual meeting place at which those who knew of him, whether his work colleagues or not, could at their choice attend to find out what he had to say about a diverse range of non-work related subjects.” The court minimized the broader access to his wall by “friends of friends” by stating that “actual access would still depend upon the persons in that wider circle taking the trouble to access it.” The court found that the manager did not thrust his views onto colleagues at the office. The medium and context was not “inherently” work related. In the result, the court concluded that the manager had been constructively dismissed.

Don’t Diss and Threaten Other Employees or Your Employer

The problems for the employees in Lougheed Imports Ltd. (West Coast Mazda) v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518 started when one of the employees posted on Facebook a post that could be interpreted as threatening: “Sometimes ya have good smooth days when nobody’s [expletive] with your ability to earn a living … and sometimes accidents DO happen, its [sic] unfortunate but thats [sic] why there [sic] called accidents right?” Another employee also was posting derogatory comments about managers.

The employees had close to 100 and 377 “friends” respectively. Significantly, the posts were escalating in tone and extreme enough that one person “de-friended” and even the girlfriend of one of the employees commented that ”[s]omethings just shouldn’t be broadcasted on facebook, especially when you still work there.”

The employer terminated the employment of the two employees. The union grieved but lost. In an interesting counterpoint to the Trafford Housing Trust case, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board concluded that there the comments on Facebook had sufficient proximity to the employer’s business. The comments had been used as a “verbal weapon”. They went beyond shop floor comments to insubordination in front of employees who were friends of the employees by degrading a manager and referring to discipline. The comments also counselled Facebook friends not to shop at the employer. In the result, the termination was upheld.

Substance, Purpose and Context

One should be careful to draw conclusions from a handful of cases in multiple jurisdictions with different approaches to employment and privacy laws. However, one theme that emerges in all three cases is that, in addition to the substance of the social media posts, the purpose and context for those postings are important considerations in concluding whether the employer has a legitimate interest in the activity of the employee’s social media activities.

Employers are often concerned about whether terminated employees can claim entitlement to accumulated sick leave credits. This case shows how important it is to scrutinize every word in termination agreements; unclear language can come back to haunt the employer.

The employee had been employed for 29 years with the County of Haldimand and its predecessor municipalities. He was presented with and accepted a severance package. He signed a Release and in essence retired.

The severance agreement was incorporated into the Release and allowed for a claim for “usual retiree benefits.” The employee relied on that language to claim payment of accumulated sick leave pursuant to a section of the employer’s Policy Manual which stated:

“An employee hired prior March 12, 1981 and who has a minimum of five (5) years of continuous service will be entitled to a payment equal to the value of one-half (.5) of the balance of the employee’s accumulated sick leave credits to a maximum of one hundred thirty (130) days pay at current salary, upon termination of employment for any reason.”

At trial, judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for payment of accumulated sick leave credits. The employer appealed and argued that the severance agreement did not specifically give entitlement to sick leave credits, and the Release barred the employee’s lawsuit.

The court decided that the only “retiree benefit” that the employee had was the payment of accumulated sick leave pursuant to the Policy Manual. As such, the severance agreement’s reference to “retiree benefits” must mean the accumulated sick leave credits.

The court also held that the Release did not bar the claim because the severance agreement was incorporated into the Release.

Lastly, the court rejected the employer’s argument that the two-year limitation period started when the employee signed the severance agreement. Instead, because sick leave credits are part of retiree benefits, the court decided that the limitation period should begin May 31, 2008, the day when he “retired”.

Daniel John Burgener v. Corporation of Haldimand County, 2012 ONSC 5230

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Simmy Yu in the writing of this article.

Are large punitive damages awards in wrongful dismissal coming back?  Looking at the trial court’s decision in the case of Pate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Townships), which is currently under appeal, one wonders.

Mr. Pate was a 9+ year employee at the Townships, who was terminated for cause due to his alleged non-remittance of building permit fees.  When he refused to resign (after being given no details of the allegations against him), he was dismissed and the matter was reported to the police.  In part due to the allegations against him and the ensuing criminal trial, Mr. Pate’s marriage and his side business with his wife both failed.  In addition, he was unable to re-establish a career as a municipal official.

Mr. Pate was subsequently acquitted, and it was determined by the trial judge that the employer had failed to disclose key information to the Crown which would have resulted in no charges having been laid in the first place.  The trial judge felt that the employer’s conduct merited relief in the form of a punitive damages award, due to the fact that damages for wrongful dismissal could not adequately address the fact that Mr. Pate’s career was effectively destroyed due to the allegations.  However due to the principle of proportionality, the trial judge awarded Mr. Pate only $25,000 in punitive damages.  The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently overturned that decision and ordered that a new trial be conducted with respect to the quantum of punitive damages and another issue.

With reference to the damage caused to Mr. Pate as well as the fact that both the criminal proceedings and the wrongful dismissal trial took years to be dealt with, on the second time around the trial judge took full advantage of the Court of Appeal’s open invitation to punish the employer for its conduct, and increased the punitive damages award from $25,000 to $550,000.

While the matter is under appeal once again and it may be that the $550,000 was excessive, the Court of Appeal’s unusual invitation to the trial judge to reassess punitive damages at a higher amount makes it clear that our province’s highest court is not averse to punishing employers whose conduct is deserving of signficant punishment.

Pate Estate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Townships), 2011 ONSC 6620 (CanLII)

A police officer who “suffered from bad temper and anger management problems” but said he was able to perform his job duties, was not disabled under the Ontario Human Rights Code, an Ontario court has decided.

Because the employee had failed a “use of force test”, he was required to surrender his weapon.  His “temper erupted”.  Four police officers were called to a domestic incident later that day at his home.  He assaulted all four officers and threatened to kill two of them.  He was subdued with a taser.  He had abused alcohol and disclosed a twelve-year history of binge drinking.  A psychologist stated that the employee had work-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court stated that is was “not aware of any jurisprudence which established that anger management issues will support a finding of disability.”

The court went on to say:

“Addiction arising from alcoholism and/or drug abuse or post traumatic stress disorder may amount to a disability within the meaning of the Code.  However, the onus on a person claiming a disability is to prove it. There was some evidence that the applicant was addicted to alcohol and some medically prescribed drugs. There was also some evidence that the applicant was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.  However, there was no evidence that any of those conditions rendered him unable to perform any aspect of his job description.  Indeed, quite the opposite was claimed.  In submitting through his counsel that the appropriate penalty was simply a demotion, the applicant took the position that he was able to perform and carry out his essential employment duties.”

Because the employee was not disabled, the police service had no duty to accommodate him.

This case demonstrates that employees who request accommodation of a disability must prove the disability.  This employee, who claimed to be able to carry out his police duties, was not disabled and therefore was not entitled to accommodation under human rights legislation.

Gulick v. Ottawa Police Service, 2012 ONSC 5536 (CanLII)

The Ontario pension regulator recently posted new questions and answers on its website regarding the “small benefit” payout rules for Ontario-registered pension plans (accessible at: http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/pensions/legislative/Pages/Smallamount.aspx).

The following is a description of the new Ontario rules about cashing out small pension benefits, which we wrote about in our blog dated July 9, 2012.  You can view that blog entry at http://www.employmentandlabour.com/cashing-out-of-small-pension-benefits-the-rules-have-changed.

Effective July 1, 2012, section 50(1) of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act was changed to increase the maximum amount that can be unlocked (i.e. paid in cash) from a pension plan as a “small benefit”.  The change allows a pension plan administrator to provide individuals with their pension benefit as a lump sum cash payment if the amount of the benefit is considered small.  This is good for plan administrators because it can assist in situations where a monthly pension benefit would be administratively burdensome to administer (e.g. an individual is entitled to only receive a few dollars each month).  Also, it could assist in situations where an annuity cannot be purchased for a former member because the amount of his or her benefit is too small.

Prior to the change and subject to the plan terms, a individual who terminated his or her membership in a pension plan was able to unlock his or her benefit if the annual benefit payable at normal retirement was not more than 2% of the YMPE in the year that he or she terminated employment.  The amended section now allows a former member of a pension plan to receive a lump sum equivalent of his or her benefit, provided the plan terms permit it, if:

a)      the annual benefit payable at normal retirement is not more than 4% of the YMPE in the year that he or she terminated employment; or

b)      the commuted value of the benefit is less than 20% of the YMPE in the year that he or she terminated employment.

For example, since the YMPE for 2012 is $50,100, if an individual terminates employment in 2012, he or she may be entitled to a cash payment of his or her pension benefit if the total annual benefit to be provided under the pension plan is not more than $2,004 per year, or the total value of the pension benefit is less than $10,200.

The questions and answers on FSCO’s website provide clarity to a number of issues and confirm the following:

• A pension plan administrator can only apply the new higher “small benefit” thresholds if the plan text provides for it.  If the plan text still refers to the old thresholds, the old thresholds must be applied unless the plan text is amended.  Note that a plan text does not need to provide for the unlocking of “small benefits” at all; it is up to the plan sponsor to decide whether to provide this additional benefit to plan members.
• It is fine for a pension plan text to use generic wording to allow the payment of small amounts, instead of referring to the exact percentages that are set out in the legislation.
• The new “small benefit” thresholds can apply to former members who terminated their employment prior to July 1, 2012.  However, the plan administrator must use the YMPE for the year in which the former member terminated employment.
• Only the YMPE in the year the member terminated employment is relevant for the purposes of determine whether a benefit is small.

As many changes to the Ontario Pension Benefits Act came into effect this summer, we will let you know if additional guidance is released by the Ontario pension regulator regarding these changes.

This article was written by Andrea Raso Amer and Eric Sherbine.

In R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a warrantless search and seizure by police of a teacher’s employer‐issued computer containing sexually explicit images of a female student were in violation of the teacher’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a time when employers are increasingly allowing (either explicitly or implicitly) employees to use employer‐issued laptop computers, smart phones, and other digital devices for their own personal use, this decision, as summarized below, offers a number of important lessons.

Click here to read more.