header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: MacLeod Law Firm

Not Preventing Sexual Assault and Harassment in the Workplace is Now More Expensive

By , June 22, 2018 11:16 am

On average, damages awarded to an employee for a breach of the Human Rights Code, remain relatively low, typically $10,000 to $15,000. However, the HRTO recently released two significant decisions that reflect a willingness to award higher amounts. Both decisions involve sexual assault and sexual harassment against women in vulnerable circumstances.

In both cases, the owners of the companies were found to be personally liable along with the corporations.

The Cases

In A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited et al, 2018 HRTO 107, the employee worked for Joe Singer for 28 years. The allegations made by A.B. were of atrocious conduct. She stated that she was forced to perform oral sex, intercourse, and degrading sexual conduct. She accused her employer of watching pornography in his office. Her employer also criticized her skin colour, accent, and body. Although she had issues with her memory in her testimony, the HRTO still preferred her evidence, and found company and the owner both responsible for the sexual assault and sexual harassment. The HRTO ordered the respondents to pay $200,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Following Joe Singer, the HRTO released G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour, 2018 HRTO 201. In X Tattoo, the applicant was a 15-year-old woman whose employer engaged in unwanted sexual discussion and forced the applicant to engage in sex acts. Looking to the Joe Singer decision, the HRTO awarded $75,000 in general damages (the maximum that the applicant had requested).

Lessons

Most employers would hope and believe that their staff and management would not engage in the conduct seen in Joe Singer and X Tattoo. However, the bar for the maximum damage awards has increased. We can expect that the average award level will also increase.

Employers need to ensure:

  1. that they create a workplace culture of no tolerance for harassment and violence. This includes having the appropriate policies and training in place;
  2. that they respond promptly to every sexual harassment complaint and investigate all complaints as well as incidents; and
  3. that those who come forward do not face punishment or reprisal for doing so.

For over 30 years, MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions about dealing with sexual assault or sexual harassment complaints and allegations and would like to discuss them with a lawyer, please contact me at [email protected] or 647-633-9894.

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.

 

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment At Work

By , January 25, 2018 4:30 pm

In the wake of workplace sexual assault allegations against Patrick Brown, I continue to reiterate what employers of any kind can do to try and prevent and discourage sexual harassment and sexual assault at work.

Given the context of the recent allegations, the first point appears particularly important.

1. As individuals, rethink flirting, compliments, or seeking romantic relationships at work. Legally, before acting, you need to be certain that advances, comments and conduct is consented to and wanted by a co-worker; otherwise, it can be sexual harassment. Definitely, do not make sexual advances to a subordinate. If you have power over a person’s job, pay, duties etc. it is difficult to decipher whether consent is truly given. Repeated advances made to a peer (as opposed to a subordinate), even where no explicitly sexual or gender-based comments are made, can affect a person’s dignity and sense of value as an employee. As an individual, you could be found personally liable under the Human Rights Code (the “Code”) for sex- based discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual solicitation. As an employer, you can be vicariously liable for your employee’s conduct if you knew about it and did nothing. 

2. Employers can create a culture of no tolerance for harassment and violence. But this ethos must start at the top. Employers should have policies against harassment, including sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. This is a very basic first step to setting the culture. It is also required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) for employers with more than five employees.

3. Promptly respond to every sexual harassment complaint. Do not let anyone brush it off, excuse the behaviour, or consider it a “harmless joke”. Adequately investigating such a complaint is required under OHSA and the Code. Treat the complaint as truthful and made in good faith. Take complaints seriously – whether the complaint is about crude jokes or sexual assault. “Locker room talk” is not permissible in Ontario workplaces. These factors will be considered by judges and tribunal members whether assessing whether a complaint was investigated properly. It also creates a workplace climate where employees feel they can share their stories.

4. Investigate all incidents as well as complaints. Do not wait for an employee to come forward to investigate sexual harassment. It is mandatory under OHSA to investigate any incident that comes to the employer’s attention. Remember: A formal complaint is not needed. Learning of incidents of sexual harassment or violence but not investigating them is a violation of OHSA. Allowing the behaviour to continue unchecked also creates a culture of tolerance for this behaviour. Waiting for a woman to share her story before intervening puts the pressure on the woman to create change.

5. Men need to call out other men when they are engaging in belittling, harassing, or abusive acts against women. An employer can be liable for a poisoned work environment if there is a culture of sexualized joking even if it is not targeted at a particular individual.

6. Do not punish someone for coming forward. Even if you investigate and cannot substantiate the allegations, this does not mean it did not occur. Punishing someone for making a harassment complaint is generally considered a reprisal and can result in reinstatement and back pay under both the Code and OHSA.

7. Show respect to women. This includes equal pay for equal work, and fair merit- based promotions. In some contexts, this is required by law through the Code, the Employment Standards Act, and the Pay Equity Act. It also creates a workplace that values women and will diminish sex-based discrimination or harassment.

8. Stop language that diminishes women such as names like “honey”, “babe”, “dear”, or “girl”. This is subtle sex-based discrimination and elevates lowers their status.

 

For over 30 years, MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions and would like to discuss them with a lawyer, please contact me at [email protected] or 647-633-9894.

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.

 

Due Diligence and Why It’s Important

By , January 15, 2018 11:44 am

Employers have various obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“the OHSA”), including the very broad, catch-all duty to take every reasonable precaution in the circumstances to protect workers.

When there is a workplace accident, the Ministry of Labour will often charge the employer with violating this general duty. Violations of the OHSA are “strict liability” offences, which means that the Ministry of Labour does not need to prove that the employer intended to violate the OHSA.

An employer’s sole defence is the “due diligence” defence, which is available in two circumstances:

  1. If the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which if true, would render the act or omission innocent; or
  2. If the accused took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event.

In Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v Cobra Float Service Inc., an Ontario court dismissed an OHSA charge by finding that the employer had established the due diligence defence.

Facts

The circumstances around this case arose from a tragic fatality at a construction site, where a curb machine overturned while being off-loaded from a float trailer, crushing a worker who later died from his injuries. The charge against the company alleged that the curb machine was moved in a manner that endangered the worker.

Decision

The court found that the worker had deviated from the standard practice that he and other workers had followed on previous occasions. Although there were no training courses available for the task in question, the worker had previously demonstrated his ability to perform the task. The court found that the employer was entitled to rely on the worker’s experience.

The court noted that the employer could have established a more formalised training protocol within the company but the lack of this formalised protocol did not necessarily mean that the employer was exposing workers to foreseeable risks and dangers. The court cautioned against measuring the practices of smaller companies against those of larger companies, which typically have more resources to devote to formalised training.

With respect to the due diligence defence, the court found that:

  • The company had held regular safety meetings;
  • There were no formal education courses that workers could take on the loading and unloading task;
  • The worker knew or should have known that what he was doing was unsafe;
  • The company encouraged workers to discuss any safety concerns and provided a form for those discussions at regularly scheduled meetings;
  • The worker had successfully moved the curb machine 27 times; and
  • There was no evidence that this was an industry-wide safety issue.

Lessons to be Learned

  1. Because violations of the OHSA are “strict liability” offences, the Ministry of Labour does not need to prove that the employer intended to violate the OHSA.
  2. Evidence regarding a company’s safety practices go a long way to proving that the employer took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular workplace accident (i.e. to make out the due diligence defence).
  3. All employers should prioritize safety, but it is worth noting that what is appropriate for a small to medium size employer may differ than what is appropriate for a larger employer.

“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.”

Marijuana legalization – How Employers Should Navigate the Hazy Legal Landscape

By , January 11, 2018 10:45 am

The legalization of marijuana is expected to change Ontario’s employment law landscape in 2018. Legislation is expected to be implemented by July 2018.

It is not too early for employers to take proactive steps to address these changes.

Expected changes

Bill C-45, An Act respecting Cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (the “Bill”) passed its second reading on November 27, 2017. Although the bill will legalize cannabis across Canada, the provinces and territories will generally determine how marijuana can be sold and used. The Bill allows the Minister of Labour to make regulations relating to smoking in the workplace.

What employers should do

Employers should review their current workplace policies and if a drug and alcohol policy does not exist, then the employer should consider  adding one before the new cannabis laws take effect. Among other things, the policy should recognise that recreational use of marijuana will be legalized under the Bill requires a different approach than medical use of marijuana which has been legal since 1999.

Although the legalization of marijuana is a big change, employers often forget that just because something is legal, does not mean it is permissible at the workplace. For example, alcohol is legal, however, employers are entitled to expect that their employees report to work sober and refrain from drinking alcohol at the workplace. Similarly, simply because recreational marijuana is being legalized does not mean that it is permissible to smoke marijuana at the workplace, or attend the workplace impaired. Employers can set out their expectations regarding impairment and safety at the workplace in workplace policies and procedures.

With respect to medical use of marijuana, employers need to be mindful of their obligations under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, namely, the duty to accommodate employees to the point of  undue hardship, which may include permitting an employee to work while under the influence of marijuana. The duty to accommodate does not eliminate an employer’s right to seek medical proof of prescription and medical documentation supporting the fact that the employee is required to ingest marijuana during working hours, nor does it eliminate an employer’s duty to ensure that the workplace is safe for all employees. Thus, employers must remain prepared to deal with marijuana-related accommodation requests on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the employee’s medical needs and their obligations under health and safety laws.

Lessons to Be Learned

The legalization of marijuana is changing the legal landscape. Due to these changes, we recommend that new policies be drafted to address the anticipated increase in  marijuana use, or that existing policies be amended to ensure they are consistent with the upcoming changes. The MacLeod Law Firm offers a fixed fee service to prepare new drug & alcohol policies, or to revise existing policies.

If you have any questions regarding the effect of the Bill on your workplace, or would like to learn more about the fixed fee service mentioned above, feel free to contact 647-985-9894.

Employment Standards Alert: The Cost of Doing Business in Ontario Just Went Up

By , November 23, 2017 11:54 am

The Ontario government’s much publicized overhaul to the province’s employment standards legislation will take effect as early as December 3, 2017.

For the most part, vulnerable employees and employees in precarious employment will benefit from these legislative changes.

As far as employers are concerned, these changes will result in higher payroll costs and a more regulated workplace.

I believe most employers will need to change existing employment practices and policies to comply with this new law.

This blog summarizes a few of the changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act.

Increased Payroll Costs

The minimum wage increases from $11.60 to $14.00 as of January 1, 2018 and to $15.00 on January 1, 2019 – about a 30% increase.

Employees are entitled to an extra week of paid vacation after 5 years employment.

For the first time, employees are entitled to paid leaves of absence.

The cost of replacing an employee who is on a leave or is unable to work will in many cases be going up. It will not matter whether you hire someone on your own or you use a temporary help agency unless your organization can satisfy a statutory exemption.

Wages for part-time workers are also going up unless an employer can satisfy a statutory exemption.

The cost of cancelling a shift on less than 48 hours’ notice, or sending a person home early if the person is scheduled to work 3 or more hours is also increasing.

Restrictions on an Employer’s Traditional Management Rights

New limits on scheduling work have been introduced which allow employees to refuse changed schedules.

Employees have the right to take more time off work. In particular, employees are entitled to longer and new leaves of absences. For example, combined pregnancy and parental leave is being increased from 12 months to 18 months, the family medical leave is being increased from 8 weeks to 28 weeks, the critically ill child care leave has been expanded and renamed the critical illness leave and now encompasses not only children of the employee but minor and adult family members as well, and employees are now entitled to take up to 17 weeks of domestic assault leave.

Employers can no longer request a doctor’s note if a person asks for a personal emergency leave day, including a sick day.

How to Comply with the Changes to the Employment Standards Act

To help employers understand the implications of these legislative changes on their workplaces the MacLeod Law Firm has developed a compliance service. It involves reviewing your organization’s current employment practices and policies and recommending changes that are needed to bring them into compliance with the changed employment standards legislation.

For more information on this service, please contact Nadia Halum at 647-985-9894 or at [email protected]. Additional compliance services are found here.

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