1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Ontario passes the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 (Bill 148) on November 22, 2017

The Ontario government has just passed the Bill 148 which amends the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act with a target effective date of January 1, 2018.  The Bill still needs to receive Royal Assent.

Key changes to the Employment Standards Act will include:

  • Raising the general minimum wage to $14 per hour as of January 1, 2018 and $15 per hour as of January 1, 2019
  • As of April 1, 2018 requiring the same rate of pay as paid to full-time employees for employees doing substantially the same kind of work including temporary help agency staff, casual, part time, temporary and seasonal workers
  • Increasing the minimum vacation to three weeks per year after an employee has five years of service
  • Increasing parental leave for birth mothers who have taken maternity leave to 61 weeks (from the current 35 weeks);  increasing parental leave for adoptive parents and fathers to 63 weeks (from the current 37 weeks)
  • Extending the availability of personal emergency leave days to employers with under 50 employees
  • Requiring the first two days per year of personal emergency leave to be paid with the remaining eight days unpaid
  • Extending the leave of absence to 104 weeks for death of a child as a result of a crime to the death of a child for any reason
  • Increasing the current 52 week leave of absence in the case of child disappearance as a result of a crime to 104 weeks
  • Increasing family medical leave from 8 weeks to 28 weeks
  • Adding a new domestic violence/sexual violence leave of absence ; up to 10 days off and up to 15 weeks of leave per year will be available (first five days to be paid) where an employee or an employee’s child experiences domestic or sexual violence and needs time off for medical attention, counselling, to relocate, for legal assistance or law enforcement reasons

There are numerous changes that will come into effect on January 1, 2019 concerning scheduling including the following:

  • If a shift is cancelled within 48 hours of its start, employees will be paid 3 hours of pay
  • Employees can refuse a shift without repercussion if they receive less than 96 hours of notice
  • On-call employees who are either not called into work or work fewer than three hours must be paid three hours of their regular pay rate

The Ministry of Labour has announced that it will hire up to 175 additional Employment Standards Officers to enforce the changes.

Key changes to the Labour Relations Act will include:

  • Card-based union certification for the building services industry, the home care and community services industry and the temporary help agency industry
  • Allowing unions to access employee lists and certain contact information provided the union can demonstrate that it has the support of 20% of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
  • OLRB can conduct votes outside the workplace, including electronically and by telephone
  • Employees in a bargaining unit may only be disciplined or discharged for just cause in the period between certification and the date on which a first contract is entered into, and during the period between the date the employees are in a legal strike or lock-out position and the date a new collective agreement is entered into (or the date on which the union no longer represents the employees)
  • Maximum fines will increase to $5,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations (formerly these fines were $2,000 for individuals and $25,000 for organizations).
Ontario passes the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 (Bill 148) on November 22, 2017

A Truly Poisoned Work Environment – Arbitrator Upholds Discharge of Employee Who Spiked Office Water Cooler with Bleach

In what can only be described as a victory for common sense, an arbitrator recently upheld the discharge of a 27 year employee who was found responsible for spiking the office water cooler with chlorine bleach.

On September 12, 2011, an employee reported to his supervisor that the water from the office water cooler had a “strong chlorine smell” and a “very hard taste”. In reviewing the surveillance video on the day in question, the Grievor is seen exiting his office with an empty water cooler jug, entering the chemical storage room and then leaving the chemical storage room and walking back to his office with a chlorine bleach jug in his hand. As he re-enters his office, the Grievor is seen placing his hand on the cap of the chlorine bleach jug. The Grievor later exits his office with the chlorine bleach jug in his hand. He ultimately returns to his office with a full jug of water for the cooler.

When initially confronted about the situation, the Grievor denied that he had caused the contamination of the water cooler but volunteered no information about why he had obtained the bleach from the chemical storage room. However, in his subsequent meetings with investigators and through his testimony at the hearing, the Grievor’s story evolved to the point where he alleged that he had poured the bleach into two cups – one to be used later in the day to clean some shelves in his office and the other to pour into a dumpster located outside his office in order to kill its odour.

At the hearing, the Grievor’s supervisor rejected the Grievor’s explanation noting that it made no sense for the Grievor to clean the shelves since they were not dirty and they were being dismantled to be taken out of the building. He further testified that he never saw the Grievor use a cup to pour chlorine breach into the dumpster.

In his decision, the Arbitrator found that the Grievor’s testimony lacked credibility. In the Arbitrator’s view, “the Grievor’s many actions, as witnessed on the video and as described in his testimony, when taken together simply defy logic and do not make sense”. As a result, the Arbitrator ruled that it was more likely than not that he was the cause of the chlorine bleach contamination of the office drinking water cooler. With respect to penalty, the Arbitrator held that “…the level of mistruths and evasiveness displayed by the employee, as well as his failure to take responsibility for his actions, irreparably harmed the employee-employer relationship.” There was therefore no basis for the Arbitrator to interfere with the Employer’s decision to dismiss the Grievor for cause.

This case is a good reminder of the importance that credibility will play when an adjudicator is asked to determine which version of events is more likely to have occurred. In conducting investigations, employers should ensure that they take detailed statements from those involved so as to “nail down” the alleged offender’s story. Should the alleged offender later change his or her story, the employer will be in a good position to impeach the employee’s credibility.

Knox v. Treasury Board (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2017 PSLREB 40.

 

 

,

A Truly Poisoned Work Environment – Arbitrator Upholds Discharge of Employee Who Spiked Office Water Cooler with Bleach

Court Allows the TTC to Implement Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

In a recent decision, the Honourable Justice Marrocco of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the request of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 and Robert Kinnear (the “Applicants”) to restrain the TTC from conducting the random drug and alcohol testing of its employees.

The random testing applies to TTC employees who work in safety sensitive, specified management, senior management and designated executive positions, including the TTC’s CEO. The TTC expects to test 20% of its eligible employees per year, which means that statistically, each eligible employee has the chance of being tested once every five years. If selected, employees will be required to take an alcohol breathalyzer test and an oral fluid drug test. A failure to submit to a random test will be a violation of company policy, and employees who test positive will be considered unfit for duty.

The TTC first introduced random testing to its Fitness for Duty Policy in 2011 and the parties have since been involved in an ongoing arbitration on the same issue, which “has no end in sight”. The TTC approved the implementation of the random testing on March 23, 2016. Shortly thereafter, the Applicants applied to the Court for an injunction to stop the testing until the completion of the arbitration hearing.

The Applicants argued that random drug and alcohol testing would cause employees “irreparable harm” by infringing on the employees’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Applicants also stated that the random testing: increased the likelihood of psychological harm to the employees, could damage the relationship between employees and management, and raised the risk of false-positive results.

In rejecting the Applicants’ arguments, the Court determined that TTC employees in safety-sensitive positions have a reasonably diminished expectation of privacy concerning their drug and alcohol consumption. In particular the Court noted that:

  • The employees’ duties, which include helping people make approximately 1.8 million journeys on the TTC’s system every day, as well as the TTC’s atypical workplace, which is “genuinely Toronto itself”, reasonably diminish the employees’ expectation of privacy concerning drug and alcohol consumption;
  • The TTC has chosen minimally invasive methods to conduct the random testing, which are superior to other methods available on the market;
  • The nature of the Fitness for Duty Policy is both disciplinary and remedial. Employees have the opportunity to challenge any positive results and have some degree of control over the information collected and generated in the testing process; and
  • Employees whose privacy has been “wrongfully infringed” by random testing have the opportunity to claim, and receive, monetary damages.

As such, the Court concluded that the TTC’s random drug and alcohol testing is an appropriate tool, which “will increase public safety”, as follows:

“After considering all the evidence, including the evidence to which I have referred, I am satisfied that, if random testing proceeds, [it] will increase the likelihood that an employee in a safety critical position, who is prone to using drugs or alcohol too close in time to coming to work, will either be ultimately detected when the test result is known or deterred by the prospect of being randomly tested.”

While the decision provides important insight on how the Court will approach the exercise of balancing employee privacy rights with the needs of a safety-sensitive workplace, it must also be remembered that this was an injunction application to prohibit the introduction of the Policy pending the arbitration, not a decision on the merits of the TTC’s Policy, which will be determined at arbitration. That said, the TTC has announced that the random drug and alcohol testing of its employees will begin this month (see the TTC’s press release here). The Court’s decision will likely encourage other employers in Ontario, particularly those in similarly-situated safety-sensitive workplaces, to follow suit.

A copy of the full decision can be found here: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 ONSC 2078

,

Court Allows the TTC to Implement Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

Agency personnel in the healthcare sector: who is the real employer?

In recent years, the Québec Tribunal administratif du travail (the “TAT”) (formerly the Commission des relations du travail) has frequently been called on to address the legal implications involved in the hiring of temporary employees through personnel agencies in the health and social services field.

Most recently, in the case of Professionel (le)s en soins de santé unis (FIQ) and Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal[1], the TAT ruled on the issue as to whether nursing and cardio-respiratory professionals who were assigned to the Montréal West Island Integrated University Health and Social Services Centre (the “Centre”) through personnel agencies were included in the Centre’s Professionnel(le)s en soins de santé unis’ bargaining unit (the “Bargaining Unit”), since the union had filed an application under section 39 of the Labour Code, CQLR, c. C-27 to have these professionals included in the said Bargaining Unit.

The union argued that its request was consistent with the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) in Pointe-Claire (City) v Quebec (Labour Court) (“Pointe-Claire”)[2] which promoted a comprehensive and flexible approach to the identification of the “real employer” in a tripartite relationship. In this context, the union emphasised the particular institutional framework of health and social services to support its contention that the true employer was the Centre and not the personnel agencies.

The issue was decided upon on August 25th 2016 by Mr. André Michaud from the TAT, who ruled that in light of the particular institutional framework of health and social services in Québec, the real employer of the temporary employees hired through personnel agencies was the Centre and not the personnel agencies. Hence, the temporary employees were included in the Bargaining Unit.

In reaching this decision, the TAT began its analysis by examining the criteria set forth in Pointe-Claire in order to identify the real employer in the tripartite relationship. The TAT held that the temporary employees assigned by the personnel agencies had to adapt to the strict working conditions of the Centre and were fully integrated into teams of different services or care units. These employees were directly under the control of the Centre. The Court added that the temporary employees had to perform the same tasks, in the same manner and under the same conditions as the permanent employees of the Centre. Furthermore, they were overseen by the same supervisors and used the same equipment in the facilities. From a patient’s perspective, no distinction could be made between both categories of employees. Finally, the TAT underlined that the purpose of using the services of said agencies was not for their nursing expertise but rather for their specific expertise in providing qualified professionals who had such expertise. The Centre communicated very specific requirements with respect to the necessary qualifications and training of the temporary employees and the personnel agencies would in turn find the appropriate candidates. As such, the Centre directly and indirectly controlled almost every aspect of the temporary employees’ hire and working conditions. For all of these reasons, the TAT concluded that the Centre was actually the real employer of the professionals who were assigned to the Centre through personnel agencies.

The implications of the TAT’s findings in this case are highly important because there may be an increase of requests under section 39 of the Labour Code to have all the professionals assigned through personnel agencies included in the employer’s pre-existing bargaining units.

It is worthy to note that this decision is currently undergoing judicial review as both the Centre and personnel agencies argue that the TAT reached its conclusions by misinterpreting the health and social services institutional framework, and without sufficient evidence on the criteria defined by the Supreme Court in Pointe-Claire such as the legal subordination, the selection, discipline and evaluation process as well as the assignment of duties, remuneration and integration into the Centre. We will follow the developments in this important matter with great interest.

[1] 2016 QCTAT 5036.

[2] [1997] 1 SCR 1015.

Agency personnel in the healthcare sector: who is the real employer?

Flexible Work Arrangements Proposed by the Government of Canada

The Government of Canada recently completed a consultation with employers, employer associations, union and labour organizations, and advocacy groups as part of its pledge to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow workers in federally regulated sectors to formally request flexible work arrangements from their employers.

What Are Flexible Work Arrangements?

Flexible work arrangements are alternative arrangements to the traditional working week. The most common forms allow an individual employee to alter, on a temporary or permanent basis, his or her work schedule, the number of hours worked or the location where work is done, or to take time off to meet specific responsibilities. Some examples include:

  • Flexible start and finish times;
  • The ability to work from home;
  • Compressed work weeks: working for longer periods of time per day or shift over a defined period of time in exchange for a day off;
  • Split shifts;
  • Time swaps: An employee requests time off for personal reasons and offers to make it up by working longer than usual hours on another day; and
  • Time off in lieu: Overtime can be compensated by time off with pay at the rate of 1.5 hours per overtime hour worked.

According to Employment and Social Development Canada (“ESDC”), flexible work arrangements would help Canadians balance work and family or other personal responsibilities.

Who Will This Affect?

The proposed changes will apply only to federally regulated enterprises which fall under the Canada Labour Code. Some examples include businesses and industries such as banking, marine shipping, ferry and port services, air transportation, railway and road transportation that involves crossing provincial or international borders, telephone and cable systems, radio and television broadcasting, many First Nations activities and most federal Crown corporations. Approximately 11,450 employers and 883,000 workers would be captured by any flexible work rules enacted.

Businesses that follow provincial employment standards legislation would not be affected by the proposed changes. However, these employers are still able to offer flexible work arrangements to their employees provided that the arrangement does not violate provincial employment standards legislation.

No date has been set for when the proposed changes are expected to come into force.

Scope of the Right

ESDC has acknowledged that the proposed changes will not create a right to a flexible work arrangement. Rather, employees would have the right to request a flexible work arrangement. Employers may have legitimate business reasons for denying such a request. Currently however, the grounds for refusing such a request have not yet been set out.

Things to Consider

Flexible work arrangements have potential benefits for employers such as improved employee retention rates, improved productivity, increased job satisfaction, reduced absenteeism and lateness, and being able to schedule work over longer portions of the day.

However, flexible work arrangements may have negative impacts, particularly on the operations of small businesses due to their generally more limited resources to deal with additional administrative burdens. Other concerns raised by employers include potential additional costs, disruptions due to having to reorganize work amongst existing staff, insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work and problems recruiting additional staff.

The extent to which these potential benefits and drawbacks will affect employers will depend on what changes are made to the Canada Labour Code as well as each employer’s business characteristics.

We will continue to monitor developments to the government’s proposal and provide updates as more information about the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code become known.

Flexible Work Arrangements Proposed by the Government of Canada

British Columbia Arbitrator Reinstates Firefighter Convicted of Possession of Stolen Boat

In a recent grievance decision, Re Prince George and Prince George Firefighters, Local 1372 (Williams), 2016 CarswellBC 2591, a labour arbitrator reinstated a firefighter whose employment was terminated after being found guilty of possession of a stolen boat and trailer.

The arbitrator concluded that in order to justify terminating a unionized employee, there must be a sufficient nexus between the employee’s misconduct away from work, and his employment duties.

Facts

The Grievor had been a firefighter for 11 years with a pristine work record. There were no concerns with his honesty or work.  In 2012, he purchased a boat and trailer for $9,500 from a fellow firefighter.  The boat, reportedly worth approximately $30,000, had been stolen.  The state of the Grievor’s knowledge when he purchased the boat was disputed.

The Grievor was arrested in 2013. The RCMP phoned the Grievor and asked to attend his property to investigate a tip that a stolen boat was located on his property.  Within minutes of the call, the Grievor hooked the boat and trailer up to his car and began towing it away from his property.  However, the Grievor’s property was under surveillance and he was arrested.

The Grievor lied about his acquisition of the boat and trailer in his initial statement to police, providing a story about how he purchased the boat, and three different purchase prices. He later admitted to the RCMP that he bought the boat from a fellow firefighter for much less, but he did not admit to knowing the boat was stolen.  However, he made some comments that he had doubts about the deal, and suggested he “had an inkling in the pit of his stomach” about it.

The employer investigated and the Grievor reluctantly admitted to the arrest. The Grievor was placed on leave, but the employer did not initially ask if he knew the boat was stolen.  When asked in a subsequent interview, the Grievor said it was a “grey area”.  He also advised the employer of his attempt to flee with the boat.  The employer allowed the Grievor to return to work with conditions, accepting that he was being forthright.

In the criminal proceedings, the court did not accept the Grievor’s evidence, and he was found to have known the boat was stolen. The trial was widely reported in the local media.

Upon learning of the verdict, the employer terminated the Grievor’s employment. The employer’s reasons, as stated at arbitration, included: the comments made by the judge regarding the non-acceptance of the Grievor’s evidence and his credibility, dishonesty and lack of judgment; the media reports and negative publicity; and concerns about the Grievor’s honesty during the employer’s investigation.

Arbitrator’s Reasons

The arbitrator found it difficult to reconcile evidence regarding the Grievor’s police statement and his evidence at trial and arbitration that he had no concern the boat was stolen. She noted that she had “grave doubts” as to his understanding of the underlying issue of his honesty.  Nevertheless, she proceeded to consider the question of whether termination was excessive in the circumstances.

To this end, relying on Millhaven Fibres Ltd. and OCAW, Local 9-670, Re, [1967] O.L.A.A. No. 4 (Ont Arb), the arbitrator noted that in determining whether the Grievor’s conduct away from the place of work was a justifiable reason for discharge, there was an onus on the employer to show that:

  1. The conduct of the Grievor harms the employer’s reputation or product;
  2. The Grievor’s behaviour renders the employee unable to perform his duties satisfactorily;
  3. The Grievor’s behaviour leads to refusal, reluctance or inability of the other employees to work with him;
  4. The Grievor has been guilty of a serious breach of the criminal code and thus rendering his conduct injurious to the general reputation of the employer and its employees;
  5. The conduct causes difficulty in the way the employer properly carries out its function of efficiently managing its works and efficiently directing its working force.

The arbitrator found there was no direct link between the misconduct and the Grievor’s duties. There was no suggestion he could not be trusted to do his firefighting duties. The arbitrator accepted that it was an isolated incident by an employee with a pristine work record, not likely to be repeated.  Moreover, he was not in a fiduciary position, and his duties did not expose him to the temptation of greed.

In short, the arbitrator concluded that there was an insufficient nexus between the Grievor’s misconduct and his duties to warrant termination. Accordingly, the arbitrator reinstated the Grievor, but declined to award wages, seniority or benefits from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.

Take Away

Criminal convictions in and of themselves may not justify termination of an employee on the basis of dishonesty and lack of trust. Despite findings of misconduct in criminal proceedings, employers terminating for cause must establish that the misconduct actually relates in more than a general manner to the duties to be performed by the employee.

,

British Columbia Arbitrator Reinstates Firefighter Convicted of Possession of Stolen Boat

Increase to the Alberta Minimum Wage

Alberta employers are reminded that the general minimum wage in Alberta will be increased on October 1, 2016 to $12.20 per hour, up from $11.20 per hour. Additionally, the current liquor server rate will be eliminated effective October 1, 2016 and these employees will also now earn the general minimum wage. Employers are reminded to update their employment contracts and practices to ensure they reflect the new minimum wage.

The minimum wage will increase a further $1.40 to $13.60 per hour on October 1, 2017, and by $1.40 to $15.00 per hour on October 1, 2018.

,

Increase to the Alberta Minimum Wage

Intrusive surveillance systems for security purposes: the line Big Brother must not cross

Technological developments and the need for employers to monitor employees’ activities and to minimize accidents and hazards require constant adjustments in order to respect the right to privacy. While it may be tempting for employers to replace old surveillance methods with new technologies capable of watching their personnel’s every move, the inclination to use easier and more reliable ways of supervising employees must nonetheless not violate employees’ right to privacy, which, while being more limited in a work context, nevertheless exists.

In a recent Quebec arbitration ruling, Sysco, a food delivery company, had decided to install a DriveCam® safety program inside the drivers’ cabins of its trucks in Quebec. The Union disagreed with the introduction of this new surveillance measure and filed a grievance to have said cameras removed, alleging that they were not only violating the truck drivers’ rights to privacy and dignity, but that they were also leading to unfair and unreasonable working conditions.  In addition, the Union claimed that Sysco had failed to establish serious motives which would justify its resort to the use of such invasive surveillance, especially considering the existence of a no‑fault system in Quebec.  On its end, Sysco claimed that it was justified to install the cameras as they were meant to (i) be used as a training tool for the drivers, (ii) increase and encourage safe driving and (iii) assist with liability determination or exoneration in case of accident.

In ruling that Sysco was not justified in installing those cameras and ordering that they be removed, the Arbitrator used a two-fold analysis. First, did Sysco have a specific problem that needed to be addressed with these cameras?  Second, were these cameras the only way to fix the alleged problem, or was there a less intrusive way to achieve similar results?

On the first part of the analysis, the Arbitrator found that Sysco had failed to establish that it had an existing problematic situation that needed to be fixed. The employer’s concern for prevention regarding safe driving and liability determination or exoneration did not constitute strong motives for which the surveillance would be warranted.  Considerable risks revealing an existing problem would have been enough to establish the presence of a problem, but Sysco had not established such a problem. For example, a widespread problem having to do with alcohol or drug consumption during working hours would have constituted a great risk in the matter of safe driving.

With respect to the second aspect of the analysis, Sysco’s concern could easily have been addressed by other less intrusive means, such as training, random safety spot-checks, or cameras installed outside of the trucks rather than inside the cabins. In fact, cameras constantly filming the drivers inside the trucks’ cabins had even proven to be distracting for the drivers, thus potentially creating a greater risk from a safety perspective.

Employers who may be tempted to install such surveillance systems on their fleet will need to remember that any such violation of their employees’ right to privacy will only be justified by identifying an existing specific problem that cannot be fixed by a less intrusive means than the surveillance system the employer wishes to install.

The decision can be found here: Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses de Sysco-Québec-CSN et Sysco Services alimentaires du Québec, 2016 QCTA 455.

,

Intrusive surveillance systems for security purposes: the line Big Brother must not cross

Supreme Court of Canada to Federally Regulated Employers: No “Without Cause” Dismissals Under Canada Labour Code

In a decision which returns us to what many thought was the status quo, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, (save for exempt employees), the unjust dismissal scheme in the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”) does not permit federally regulated employers to dismiss employees without cause once they have one year of service or more. This decision reverses the decisions of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, which had ruled that nothing in the Code precluded federally regulated employers from dismissing non-unionized employees on a without cause basis. As a result, for federally regulated employers, when it comes to dismissal, the right of non-union employees to protection from dismissal tracks the right of their unionized counterparts.

Facts:

In November 2009, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (“AECL”) dismissed a procurement supervisor after four and a half years of service. The employee promptly filed an “Unjust Dismissal” complaint, claiming that he had been unjustly dismissed contrary to the Code. In response, AECL argued that because it had provided the employee with a generous severance package well in excess of his minimum statutory entitlements (i.e. 6 months’ pay), the employee had not been unjustly dismissed. The Adjudicator appointed to hear the matter disagreed with AECL and ruled that an employer could not rely on severance payments, however generous, to avoid a finding that an employee had been unjustly dismissed under the Code.

In a surprise to many, the Federal Court of Canada, and then the Federal Court of Appeal, disagreed with the Adjudicator, holding that nothing in the Code prevented federally regulated employers from dismissing non-unionized employees without cause. The employee appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada:

Writing for the majority, Justice Abella stated that the purpose of the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme was to provide “…a cost-effective alternative to the civil court system for dismissed employees to obtain meaningful remedies which are far more expansive than those available at common law”. In Justice Abella’s view, the remedies contemplated by the Code for non-unionized employees were meant to reflect those generally available in the collective bargaining context. As such, in the federal sphere, the common law right of employers to dismiss “…whomever they want for whatever reason they want so long as they give reasonable notice or pay in lieu” was superseded by the Code, which did not give federally regulated employers such a right.

What this means for Federally Regulated Employers:

For better or for worse, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision provides legal certainty for Canada’s federally regulated employers, as it ends the debate about whether the Code permits without cause dismissals. That said, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision does not mean that an employee’s right to sue his or her former employer in court for wrongful dismissal has been extinguished. As the minority noted in this case, due to a legislative wrinkle, a federally regulated employer can dismiss an employee without cause as long as that employee chooses to challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal in the civil courts.  However, if the employee files a complaint under the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme, the notice provided to the employee will not insulate the employer from an adjudicator’s finding that the dismissal was nonetheless unjust.

Accordingly, unless and until the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme is amended to allow for without cause dismissals, federally regulated employers can only dismiss an employee with one year of service or more due to performance issues, a lack of work or the discontinuance of a function. Failure to meet this requirement could result in significant liability for the employer, including reinstatement.

Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc29/2016scc29.pdf)

,

Supreme Court of Canada to Federally Regulated Employers: No “Without Cause” Dismissals Under Canada Labour Code

Join Us for a Legal Update at Dentons’ June 10th employment law seminar in Toronto

Dentons will be providing a complimentary half-day employment law seminar in Toronto on Friday, June 10th.  You are welcome to join us.

Presentations at the seminar will be as follows:

  • Recent OHS Cases of Interest”, presented by Adrian Miedema
  • “Workplace confidential: How to maintain privilege over workplace investigations”, presented by Andy Pushalik and Rahim Punjani
  • “Bill 132: Ontario’s new sexual violence and harassment legislation – what employers need to know”, presented by Sabrina Serino
  • “To compete or not to compete? Tips and traps when drafting restrictive covenants”, presented by Jeff Mitchell and Chelsea Rasmussen
  • “How to support transgender employees”, presented by Anneli LeGault
  • “You tweeted what?!: Tips on effectively managing social media in the workplace”, presented by Matthew Curtis and Saba Zia
  • “Covering your assets: Common employer liabilities and best practices for managing HR risk”, presented by Blair McCreadie and Carmen Francis
  • “Do you sponsor a Group RRSP or defined contribution pension plan? Beware of “estimates” that your provider wants to give your employees”, presented by Mary Picard and Aiwen Xu

Date & Time Friday, June 10, 2016 Registration and breakfast:  8:30-9:00 a.m. Welcome remarks and special guest speaker:  9:00-9:30 a.m. Breakout sessions:  9:45-12:15 p.m. Lunch and special guest speaker:  12:15 p.m.

Location Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West 5th Floor Toronto, ON

Click here to RSVP

Contact Please contact toronto.events@dentons.com for any questions.

,

Join Us for a Legal Update at Dentons’ June 10th employment law seminar in Toronto