header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: employment law

“We’re Getting Rid of Bill 148”, says Premier Ford

By , October 3, 2018 10:34 am

After two years of public consultations, the Liberal government introduced many changes to the Employment Standards Act in November 2017 but delayed implementing several of these changes until 2019. The changes were contained in Bill 148.

During the election campaign, Premier Ford said he would stop the $ 1 an hour increase in the minimum wage that is currently scheduled to take place on January 1, 2019. But based on statements he made in the legislature yesterday, it looks like he may be rolling back other Bill 148 changes.

This is yet another example of a government changing the legal landscape at Ontario’s workplaces. Judges and administrative tribunals also impose new obligations on employers each year.

Every two weeks I blog about a recent employment law development but every year I pick three issues that I believe deserve special, in-depth attention.

Our Annual Employment Law Seminar

On October 23rd and October 24th, the MacLeod Law Firm will cover three important workplace issues at half-day seminars in Toronto and Barrie.

What Topics Are We Covering This Year?

(i) The Impact of Legal Recreational Cannabis in the workplace

In about two weeks, the federal government is legalizing the sale of recreational cannabis. Each province is going to decide how to sell cannabis and introduce laws that will prohibit a person from ingesting more than a prescribed amount of cannabis and driving. In the last week, Ontario has introduced such a law. We will discuss the components of a workplace policy that addresses recreational cannabis use.

(ii) Rolling Back Bill 148

Yesterday, Premier Ford signalled that legislation is coming that will roll back some parts of Bill 148. We will discuss the fate of the proposed increase in the minimum wage, recently introduced paid personal emergency leave days, and new scheduling, on call, and pay transparency laws that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2019.

(iii) Ontario’s Human Rights Minefield

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has released a number of decisions this year which could significantly impact your employment practices. One decision may force employers to extend group extended medical benefits to employees who are over 65 years old. Another decision will force some employers to change the way they hire employees from different countries. We will discuss what these decisions mean to you.

Click here for more information on this seminar.

Who Should Attend Our Seminar

If you are responsible for HR issues at your workplace or you have to deal with employment issues as part of your job or you are ultimately responsible for paying monies to settle employee complaints, then you will benefit from attending this seminar.

The cost of this seminar is $199 plus H.S.T. To register, please email [email protected] or call 647-204-8107.

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.

Do you only hire workers who can work in Canada on a permanent basis?

By , September 25, 2018 9:56 am

Imperial Oil Limited recently found out the hard way that imposing a Canadian citizen requirement as a job qualification can be a costly mistake.

This case shows that the cost to respond to a human rights application filed by an unsuccessful job applicant can be significant even if a job applicant lies on his application form. The hearing in this case took 13 days.

The Facts

After graduating from McGill University Muhammad Haseeb applied for and obtained a “postgraduate work permit” (PGWP) for a three year term. The PGWP allowed him to work full time, anywhere and with any employer in Canada.

Mr. Haseeb then applied for an entry level position as Project Engineer at Imperial Oil. A condition of employment was that an applicant provide proof of his eligibility “to work in Canada on a permanent basis” by way of (1) Canadian birth certificate (2) Canadian citizenship certificate or (3) Canadian certificate of permanent residence (permanent resident card) or the “permanence requirement”. His permit did not satisfy the permanence requirement so he lied and said he could meet Imperial Oil’s permanence requirement. He went through the application process and was offered a job conditional on proving proof he could “work in Canada on a permanent basis”. He couldn’t so the offer was revoked.

The Issue

Mr. Haseeb claimed that Imperial Oil’s permanence requirement violated his right not to be discriminated against on the basis of citizenship and that the permissible ways to discriminate on the basis of citizenship did not apply.

The Law

Section 5. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states: “ Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of …citizenship, …”

Discrimination of the basis of citizenship is permitted in the situations set out in section 16 of the Code: namely:

  1.  (1) Canadian Citizenship – A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship is a requirement, qualification or consideration imposed or authorized by law.(2) – A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship or lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted for the purpose of fostering and developing participation in cultural, educational, trade union or athletic activities by Canadian citizens or persons lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.

    (3)  A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship or domicile in Canada with the intention to obtain Canadian citizenship is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted by an organization or enterprise for the holder of chief or senior executive positions.

Decision

The adjudicator concluded that Imperial Oil’s eligibility requirement directly discriminated against job applicants on the basis of citizenship and that none of the defences set out in section 16 applied.

In coming to this conclusion the adjudicator stated:

To obtain protection from discrimination under the Code on the basis of “citizenship”, the applicant need only establish that the alleged discriminatory treatment is linked to his personal characteristic of being a non-citizen of Canada (or non-Canadian citizen).

It is thus the Tribunal’s view that in direct discrimination cases … no general BFOR defence is available to a respondent. A respondent in a direct discrimination case has only statutory defence(s) available to excuse a conduct or policy that is found to discriminate in a direct (or express, targeted) manner “where the requirement expressly included a prohibited ground of discrimination” …

In the alternative, assuming the bona fide occupational qualification (or BFOQ) defence was available, the adjudicator concluded this defence was not proved. In particular, “Given the …(conclusion) that I(mperial) O(il)’s permanence requirement is not an “occupational requirement’, there is no need for this Tribunal to examine at length the bona fides or honesty of IO’s belief that the requirement achieved its purported purpose of succession planning and retention of trained employees, or, to examine IO’s assertion of undue hardship.”

Lessons to be Learned

  1. Employers should not establish overly restrictive citizen requirements for jobs –  especially for entry level positions.
  2. An unsuccessful job applicant can file an on-line no-cost human rights application and the applicant is not required to hire a lawyer to do so. The Human Rights Legal Support Centre provides free legal advice to job applicants who want to commence these legal proceedings.
  3. The cost to defend a human rights application can be staggering. An employer should carefully prepare for the three-hour mediation that takes place near the beginning of the application process and try to negotiate a settlement at the mediation (or before) if a reasonable settlement can be reached at that time.

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.

Employment Law Update: Mid-Year Report

By , June 26, 2018 3:34 pm

In this blog, as we enter the dog days of summer, I will review five current trends and developments in Ontario’s employment laws.

1.  A New Sheriff is in Town: The PC party has replaced the Liberal party as Ontario’s governing party

I anticipate this change in government will result in less government regulation of Ontario’s workplaces. During the election campaign, Doug Ford promised not to increase the minimum wage from $ 14.00 to $ 15.00 on January 1, 2019. I will let you know in a future blog whether he keeps this promise.

In the meantime, two laws the Liberal government introduced are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019.

One law changes the way public holiday is calculated. Bill 148 changed the way public holiday pay was calculated, however, effective July 1, 2018, public holiday pay will once again be calculated using the formula that applied prior to the coming into force of Bill 148. In other words, the employee’s public holiday pay for a given public holiday will be equal to the total amount of regular wages earned and vacation pay payable to the employee in the four work weeks before the work week in which the public holiday occurred, divided by 20.

The second law will require an employer to provide salary information to job applicants and prohibit employers from asking job applicants about their salary history. In particular, on April 26, 2018 the  Pay Transparency Act was passed. Unless Doug Ford repeals this law, on January 1, 2019 all employers will be prohibited from either directly/ indirectly asking candidates about past compensation, they will be required to post a compensation rate or range for all publicly advertised job postings, and they will be prohibited from reprising against employees who make inquiries about compensation practices.

Last year, the Liberal government announced it was hiring 175 employees to make sure Ontario employers are complying with the Employment Standards Act. Many of these people have now been hired, and trained and are conducting inspections of Ontario’s workplaces. The government has stated it intends to inspect 1 in 10 Ontario workplaces each year.

For more information on how we help employers comply with the Employment Standards Act, click here

2.Cannabis Use Will Be Legal On October 17, 2018

The federal government has announced that cannabis use will be legal on October 17, 2018. In the meantime, the Ontario government must decide how to regulate the sale of cannabis in Ontario. Employers need to decide whether or not to introduce or amend a drug and alcohol use policy. An employee who is impaired at work can be a health and safety problem particularly if the employee is working in a safety sensitive position. Drug testing to address this issue is, however, an extremely controversial and complex legal issue. In fact, a number of drug testing cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

To assist employers with this issue, we can draft a drug use policy for a fixed fee.

3. It Is Increasingly Difficult To Predict Whether The Courts Will Enforce A Termination Clause

I have been writing about this issue for a number of years. Despite numerous Ontario court cases including several Court of Appeal decisions I still cannot predict with any degree of certainty whether a termination clause will be enforced. In 2017, the Court of Appeal in North v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. basically overturned its 2016 decision in Oudin v. Centre Francophone de Toronto on the same issue. In the 2018 decision in Nemeth v Hatch Ltd, the Court of Appeal  found that the following clause was enforceable:The Company’s policy with respect to termination is that employment may be terminated by either party with notice in writing. The notice period shall amount to one week per year of service with a minimum of four weeks or the notice required by the applicable labour legislation. Most employment lawyers including myself were surprised by this decision.

We will review and draft needed changes to your employment contract including the termination clause for a fixed fee. For more information on our employment contract service, click here

4. Notice Period For Older Senior Managers May Be Trending Upwards

Since 1960, Ontario judges have been applying the Bardal factors when determining the appropriate reasonable notice period in wrongful dismissal cases. The age of an employee and the employee’s position are two factors that are taken into account.

A couple of 2018 decisions suggest that Ontario judges may be increasing the notice period for older, senior, relatively short service employees. In Chambers v. Global Traffic Technologies Canada Inc a 57 year old general manager with 2.5 years service was awarded 9 months pay in lieu of reasonable notice. In Hale v. Innova Medical Ophthalmics Inc. a  59 year old President with 6 years and 8 months of service was awarded 18 months termination pay. To reduce the litigation risk associated it is a good idea to require these kinds of employees to sign an employment contract with a termination clause – if you can figure out how to draft an enforceable termination clause!

5. The Cost Of Health & Safety Violations Is Likely Going Up

The Ministry of Labour investigates most “critical injuries” as that term is defined under Ontario’s Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”) and the Ministry often charges an employer for a violation of OHSA in connection with such an accident. Fines for relatively minor injuries often exceed $ 50 000. On December 17, 2017,  the maximum fine for a breach of OHSA increased from $ 500 000 to $ 1 500 000. The Ontario Court of Appeal has stated that deterrence and the size of an employer are two factors that trial judges should take into account when determining fines under OHSA. In the future, I therefore expect the Ministry of Labour will be looking for larger fines from large profitable employers when negotiating plea bargains.

We help employers comply with OHSA. For more information on our fixed fee service, 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.

Terminating Senior Executives: The Nickels and Dimes Can Really Add Up

By , March 6, 2018 8:50 am

News Flash: An employer who does not specify in an employment contract how much an executive is entitled to receive when terminated can pay much more termination pay than expected.

The Case

UBS Securities Canada Inc. found out the hard way how the nickels and dimes can add up when it terminated the employment of David Bain who was the Managing Director and Head of Canadian Mergers & Acquisition.

The Nickels & Dimes

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered four issues that were decided by the trial judge in this case, namely:

  1. Was Mr. Bain owed a deferred bonus by way of notional shares that vested after the expiry of an agreed upon 18 month notice period? This part of the bonus was worth $ 1,200,000.
  2. Was vacation pay owing calculated on base salary or salary and bonus? The difference was $ 81,772.
  3. Should prejudgment interest be based on the “lump sum” approach or the “instalment” approach? The difference was $44,585.81.
  4. Should legal costs be determined using the partial indemnity “grid” rates set out in the preamble to Rule 57, “Information for the Profession”, or by using 60% of the actual rates charged by the employee’s counsel? UBS was seeking a reduction of approximately $70,000 in the costs of the action.

The Decision

The trial judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with the employee on all four issues.

Lessons to Be Learned

  1. A well drafted employment contract and well drafted variable compensation plans can eliminate legal uncertainty and save employers A LOT of money – especially for senior executives.
  2. Variable compensation plans including bonus plans can be drafted to clearly state how much compensation a terminated employee is owed and it can be significantly less than the person’s common law entitlement.
  3. Bonus plans can be drafted so that employees are not entitled to earn vacation pay on bonus income.
  4. Termination clauses can be drafted so it is more likely that pre-judgment interest damages will be awarded using the less expensive installment method.
  5. Litigating a wrongful dismissal case can be very expensive. UBS paid its own legal fees plus 60% of Mr. Bain’s fees or $225 000. If UBS’ legal fees were the same as Mr. Bain’s then UBS’ legal costs to go to trial were about $ 600 000.

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.

 

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]

Panorama Theme by Themocracy