header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: Doug MacLeod

The Latest on the Legality of Random Drug & Alcohol Testing

By , February 20, 2018 9:18 am

In 2013, the issue of whether an employer can unilaterally implement random drug testing was addressed by the Supreme Court of CanadaBottom line: there are very few instances when random drug testing will be permitted.

This blog summarizes a recent arbitration award where a union challenged an employer’s random drug testing policy at a coal mine.

The Facts

The arbitrator found that anyone working in mine operations, the mine maintenance department, and in the coal plant was involved in a safety-sensitive job.

Further, he found  that the work and surroundings involved in all three of these operations required employees to maintain a continuing alertness so that they did not cause an accident that might injure themselves and/or another employee, or were not injured by someone else’s carelessness.

In 2012, the employer unilaterally implemented random drug and alcohol testing that required employees to, among other things,  provide breath or urine samples. If there was a positive result then the employee was required to meet with an additional specialist and disclose personal health information.

The Issue

The issue in random drug and alcohol cases is how to resolve the conflict between an employer’s interest in making their workplaces safe, and an employee’s interest in protecting their privacy.

The Test

  1. Have employees’ privacy rights been infringed and, if so, to what degree;
  2. If so, is there sufficient or adequate cause to justify the search and seizure and resulting privacy intrusions represented by random testing; and, if so,
  3. Is random testing a proportionate response to that “demonstrable workplace problem”?

The Decision

After a 39 day hearing, the arbitrator concluded:

  1. Random drug and/or alcohol testing is a prima facie privacy violation
  2. The fact that an employer’s workplace is dangerous does not, in and by itself, establish a legitimate need for random drug and alcohol testing. There was no evidence of a “demonstrated workplace problem” or “a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace.” In this regard, in the five years leading up to the random testing, the number of positive tests were relatively low for post-accident testing, averaging between one and two positive post-incident drug tests per year.
  3. Neither a positive breathalyzer test at .02% BAC nor a positive urinalysis test for the presence of cannabis or cocaine metabolites establishes that an employee was under the influence of, or impaired by, any of those substances.  Such positive tests only establish that the employee has used those substances in the past, not that he was impaired at the time of the test.

The arbitrator also noted that no evidence was led on whether or not there were any less intrusive means of measuring impairment that would be equally as effective such as “computer-assisted employee performance testing” which is more commonly known as “impairment testing.”

Lessons to Be Learned

  1. It is possible but extraordinarily difficult to justify a random drug and alcohol policy.
  2. Unionized employees will almost certainly grieve the policy under the applicable collective agreement, and non-unionized employees can file an application under human rights legislation.
  3. The onus is on the employer to justify the need for the policy.
  4. The employer must demonstrate an actual problem with substance abuse in the workplace; not a theoretical problem.
  5. The employer’s testing protocol needs to prove impairment; not use.

For over 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

Recent Changes to the Employment Standards Act – Part I

By , February 5, 2018 10:00 am

Trying to learn and apply the many recent changes to the Employment Standards Act to your workplace can be a daunting task. We are trying to make the process less intimidating by introducing the changes to you a few at a time.

This blog discusses five of the many changes that were made to Ontario’s employment standards legislation as a result of Bill 148

1.Every employee, including a part-time employee, with at least one week service is entitled to take 10 personal emergency days each year and the first two days are paid. An employee can take this leave for a personal illness, injury or medical emergency for themselves or certain family members, or to deal with an urgent matter for themselves or certain family matters. 

2. A pregnant employee can now take up to an 18 month unpaid leave of absence. This change came into effect about the same time that federal employment insurance legislation was amended to permit employees to collect employment insurance benefits over 18 months.

3. The new way to calculate statutory holiday pay is as follows: the total amount of regular wages earned in the pay period immediately preceding the public holiday, divided by the number of days the employee worked in this period. This new calculation will translate into an increase in statutory holiday pay for many part-time employees. There are currently nine paid statutory holidays under the Employment Standards Act. Make sure you use this calculation for Family Day.

4. An employee with at least three months service can request a change in work schedule or work location. The employer must either grant the request or provide reasons for denying the request. This law is subject to an employer’s duty to accommodate an employee on the basis of disability, family status or any other ground prescribed under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

5. As of April 1, 2018, a part-time employee must receive the same rate of pay as a full-time employee when they perform substantially the same kind of work, their performance requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility, and when their work is performed under similar working conditions unless an exemption applies.

For a more comprehensive summary of the Bill 148 changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, click here. 

For 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

 

Patrick Brown: Could the Alleged Sexual Harassment/Assaults Have Been Prevented?

By , January 25, 2018 5:04 pm

Yesterday, CTV reported that two women alleged Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted them. Shortly after the story broke Mr. Brown resigned as party leader.

I don’t think Mr. Brown will deny he met either women. Instead I think he will claim that whatever happened was consensual.  In other words, classic “he said, she said” situations. If criminal charges are laid against Mr. Brown then the Crown will need prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The same burden of proof as in the Jian Ghomeshi case.

This blog considers whether either situation could have been avoided from an employment law perspective.

If the federal government had addressed sexual harassment and sexual assault in the federal civil service and the House of Commons prior to 2013, then I think the 2013 incident could have been prevented. The Prime Minister could have stood up in the House of Commons and said the federal government is going to take a leadership role on this issue and take proactive steps to redress this societal problem. First, by saying it won’t be tolerated; second, by requiring all employees and MPs to comply with a sexual harassment policy; and third, by introducing a complaint procedure and encouraging employees to use it. This would have put MPs on notice of the cultural change the government was committed to leading and would have made all MPs think twice about sexually harassing staff. It would also communicate a very strong message to staff that the employer wanted people to bring forward sexual harassment complaints. In this climate, I think Mr. Brown would have thought twice before allegedly bringing a staff member back to his home or into his bedroom.

I don’t think the incident that took place over 10 years ago could have been prevented through workplace policies. According to the CTV report, the 17 year old female high school student did not appear to have any connection to Mr. Brown’s workplace and they do not appear to have met at a workplace event.

Given the societal change that has taken place in connection with sexual harassment and sexual assault over the last 5 years I do not believe nearly as many employees or politicians will put themselves in compromising situations in the future. The adverse consequences associated with sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations in 2018 is staggering.  Without these allegations, polls show Mr. Brown would have been premier of Canada’s largest province in June.

For over 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

 

Wal-Mart Employee Awarded $250,000 in Moral Damages and $500,000 in Punitive Damages

By , January 23, 2018 9:00 am

When deciding whether to settle a case, a lawyer assesses the risks and uncertainties inherent in the litigation process including the quantum of damages that a judge will likely order for each head of damages claimed. I call this litigation risk.  

As I have written beforeemployees seldom claim only wrongful dismissal damages in an employee termination case. Additional heads of damages include human rights damages, moral damages, punitive damages, and damages for the intentional infliction of mental stress. This results in more litigation risk but despite this increased risk more than 90% of cases still settle.

Every once in a while a case goes to court and the decision increases the litigation risk for all subsequent cases. This is one of those cases. Based on the reported facts in this caseI would never have predicted that Wal-Mart would have been ordered to pay the employee $ 250 000 in moral damages and $ 500 000 in punitive damages.

Until this case is appealed or followed/considered/distinguished by other trial judges, I will need to consider this decision when assessing the chances a judge will order moral damages and punitive damages in my cases. And in the meantime, litigation risk has increased for employers in employee termination cases.

The Facts

In September 2002, Gail Galea started working at Wal-Mart and about 8 years later her employment was terminated without just cause. About 10 months before her employment was terminated, her position was eliminated because of a re-organization. During her last 10 months of employment, Wal-Mart tried to find her another position within the organization and sent her to Harvard for an 8-week executive management program. When Wal-Mart couldn’t find her a suitable position she was terminated without cause. Instead of paying her the two years pay she was owed, Wal-Mart continued her benefits and the equivalent of her salary for 11.5 months.

Trial Decision

The judge concluded that an agreement between Ms Galea and Wal-Mart obliged Wal-Mart to pay her damages equal to the compensation and benefits she would have earned during the two year period after her termination.

As far as paying Ms. Galea damages for variable compensation during the 2 year period after her termination was concerned, Wal-Mart took the position it owed her no monies under a Management Incentive (Bonus) Program, Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, Executive Retirement Plan and a Long Term Incentive Plan. The trial judge disagreed except for damages claimed under the Long Term Incentive Plan.

Ms. Galea claimed moral damages because of the manner of her termination. The trial judge awarded her $200,000 for the treatment she received from Wal-Mart during the last 10 months of her employment including the 2 months she spent at Harvard. “She was made to suffer repeated humiliation, starting with the announcement of her re-assignment from Vice President, General Merchandising to that of a roving vice president of little substance.”

Ms. Galea claimed damages for the way Wal-Mart acted after her termination. The judge awarded her an additional    $50,000 damages for the following behavior. “I consider Wal-Mart’s decision to stop the continued payment of her base salary and the health and dental coverage to her and her family (after 11.5 months) to be unduly insensitive, and to have caused her mental distress. I consider Wal-Mart’s delay in answering its undertakings until the eve of trial, and the torrent of productions made in the course of the trial,… capable of causing Ms. Galea  prolonged anguish about the case.”

Ms. Galea provided no medical evidence that these actions caused her mental distress.

Ms. Galea claimed punitive damages. The trial judge awarded her $ 500 000 punitive damages for the following behaviour: “ All of Wal-Mart’s conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages occurred between January 29, 2010 and November 19, 2010 when Wal-Mart would make representations to Ms. Galea about her career prospects while making decisions that detracted from, or even defeated that purpose. It is not that Wal-Mart set Ms. Galea up to fail; it is that Wal-Mart built her up, only to let her down that much more. That corporate behaviour was not just unduly insensitive, it was mean.”

Lessons to be Learned

  1. Wal-Mart’s decision to stop termination payments after 11.5 months instead of continuing the payments for the contractually prescribed 24 months was a reason the judge ordered Wal-Mart to pay Ms. Galea moral damages. Accordingly, in this case, damages flowing from the breach of contract was more than would normally be awarded in a case like this which is the difference between the 11.5 months and the 24 months.
  2. If an employer does not want an employee to receive damages for the variable compensation that she would have earned had she received notice of termination then the variable compensation plan must clearly say so. For earlier blogs on this issue, click here
  3. If an employer implements a re-organization and does not immediately offer a new job to a person whose position has been eliminated then the employer should provide a reasonable road map to the displaced employee on how her continued employment will be handled and act consistently with this plan. In this case, the judge stated: “Conduct that can trigger moral damages includes an employer’s conduct that is untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive, and a failure to be candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with the employee.” He found that Wal-Mart breached this duty as it was trying to find a new position for Ms. Galea. I don’t know if this case will turn out to be an outlier but in the meantime employers should be very careful when dealing with an employee who is between jobs within the organization.

For over 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

 

What does “failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” mean?

By , January 19, 2018 10:03 am

When the Ministry of Labour lays charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) after a workplace injury it often includes a charge under section 25(2)(h) of OHSA which states that an employer is required to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”.

A recent case, Ontario (Labour) v. Quinton Steel (Wellington) Limited, 2017 ONCA 1006 interpreted this rather broad statutory obligation.

The Facts

Martin Vryenhoek died when he fell from a temporary welding platform. The platform was 6 feet and 6 inches tall, did not have guardrails, and no fall arrest equipment was utilized. The employer was charged under the OHSA for, among other things, “failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”. Under the applicable regulation, the installation of guardrails was not specifically required, and the worker was not specifically required to wear fall protection equipment because he was working at a height of less than three metres.

The Trial Decision

The trial justice acquitted the employer, concluding that the applicable regulation was a “complete and discrete code with respect to the requirements for protecting workers from falls in a case such as this.”

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge and stated that an employer’s duty under section 25(2)(h) to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances does not depend on the existence of a specific regulation prescribing or proscribing particular conduct. Instead, this Court found an employer’s duty under 25(2)(h) is broader than what is contained in the prescribed regulations. The Court also concluded the trial judge failed to ask whether the installation of guardrails was a reasonable precaution necessary in the circumstances of the case. A new trial has been ordered.

Lessons to be Learned

  • An employer can comply with all of its obligations under the regulations under OHSA and be convicted.
  • The duty to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker is broader than the specific obligations that are set out in OHSA and the accompanying regulations.
  • To be in a position to show it took every precaution reasonable in the circumstances an employer should implement a health & safety program which, among other things, identifies workplace hazards and potentially unsafe situations and implements training and instruction in relation to these hazards and unsafe situations. This can include daily toolbox meetings in some circumstances. For other measures that an employer can introduce, click here.

For over 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy