The Federal Court of Appeal recently upheld the Canada Industrial Relations Board’s decision to order binding resolution of a disputed issue in first contract negotiations between the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and the Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nations Council (the employer) as a remedy for the employer’s breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Paragraph 50(a) of the Canada Labour Code requires the parties to negotiate in good faith and make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement. The Board concluded the employer violated that duty by failing to communicate its reasons to PSAC for refusing to ratify a tentative agreement until after the Board initiated unfair labour practice proceedings. During the Board’s hearing, the employer revealed its intent to renegotiate the tentative agreement’s employment equity provisions to give it the authority to terminate a bargaining unit member when a qualified First Nations member was available for the position. The tentative agreement already provided a preference for qualified First Nations members in employment, a principle supported by PSAC. But as the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized, the employer’s new demand was “highly unusual” and “one that would be difficult for any trade union to ever agree to.”

The Board crafted a detailed remedy including an order that, if the parties were unable to reach agreement on the issue of preferential hiring within a 60-day period, it would order a binding method of resolving that particular term of their agreement. In its application for judicial review, the employer argued that the Board’s order was unreasonable because, among other things, it bore no rational connection to its breach of the Code and interfered with free collective bargaining. In rejecting those arguments, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the order was tied to the employer’s breaches of the Code found by the Board. What’s more, “given the prospect of binding arbitration failing agreement, the remedial order issued by the Board may well have facilitated compromise and thus furthered the process of collective bargaining.”

Read the full text of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision here. The Board’s decision is available here.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada was represented by Andrew Raven and Michael Fisher of RavenLaw.

As a member of a CSA Group Working Group, David Yazbeck contributed to the development of the Whistleblowing Guideline, which will be available for purchase on the CSA Group website on January 12, 2016. The Guideline sets out best practices for whistleblowing arrangements within an organization. This is aimed at the public and private sectors, as well as NGOs and voluntary organizations.

David Yazbeck is one of the leading practitioners in the area of whistleblower law. He was one of many experts or interested persons who were appointed to the CSA Group working group to establish the Whistleblowing Guideline.

Another year is drawing to a close, providing an opportunity to look back and consider the year’s victories and challenges in the labour and employment law context. 2015 was a momentous year for workers’ rights: there were several significant court judgments, as well as important legislative and political changes. Here is RavenLaw’s Year in Review, listing of the top five developments of the year:

1. Right to strike: the Supreme Court issued its new “Labour Trilogy” this year, with three judgments that elaborated upon freedom of association under the Charter in the labour context. The most significant of these cases was Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, which recognized a Constitutional right to strike. Read more about this huge gain for workers’ rights here.
2. Constructive dismissal: in Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, the Supreme Court clarified the test for when an employee has been constructively dismissed. The Court emphasized the importance of work, confirming that the withholding an employee’s work can amount to constructive dismissal. Read more about the judgment here.
3. Upheaval in unjust dismissal law under Canada Labour Code: the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2015 FCA 17 departed from the well-established approach to unjust dismissal complaints under the Canada Labour Code, and rejected that employees under that regime can only be terminated for just cause. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal the judgment, and workers’ advocates will be closely watching the results of that appeal. Read more about the Court of Appeal’s judgment here.
4. Expanded worker remedies under the Employment Standards Act: important remedial gains for Ontario workers took effect in February of this year, pursuant to amendments to the Employment Standards Act. These amendments included the elimination of a cap on recovery for unpaid wages and increases to the time limits to bring employment standards complaints. Read more about these developments here.
5. Ousting of the federal Conservatives: while this was not a legal development, there is no question that this change will dramatically impact workers’ rights going forward. The Liberal government has promised to repeal several anti-union laws passed by the Conservatives. Read more about those campaign promises here.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

In a recent decision, an adjudicator of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board found that the Parole Board of Canada failed to accommodate an employee’s disability, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.  This decision provides important confirmation that employees with mental health concerns must be accommodated by their employers up to the point of undue hardship.

Background

A grievance was filed by Line Emond, a statistics and data quality manager at the Parole Board of Canada, due to emotional stress caused by her fear of a co-worker. The medical evidence presented at the hearing revealed that the grievor’s fear was real and the emotional stress caused by the co-worker’s presence affected her ability to work. She had requested accommodation from her employer permitting her to work anywhere except in the same building as her co-worker.  While the employer offered to move her to an office on a separate floor with additional security, the grievor’s treating physicians agreed that the employer’s proposal was insufficient as the grievor would continue to feel unsafe. The medical evidence demonstrated that this emotional stress affected her memory, concentration and her ability to function normally.

Board’s Decision

In a decision rendered on January 25, 2016, Adjudicator Linda Gobeil allowed Ms. Emond’s grievance. The Adjudicator found that the grievor suffered from a disability or incapacity: the emotional stress suffered by the employee amounted to a disability that triggered the employer’s duty to accommodate. The Adjudicator further found that the employer failed in its duty to provide reasonable accommodation. The Adjudicator found that the employer’s proposed solution was not a reasonable one, and it was reasonable to expect the employer to be able to locate a workspace in another location for the employee. The employer was ordered to find a workspace in another building for Ms. Emond, and Ms. Emond also received compensation for the lost wages and benefits during her time on long-term disability.

As counsel for the grievor, Kim Patenaude, of RavenLaw, told the Ottawa Citizen, the Adjudicator’s decision “has the potential to broaden an employer’s responsibility to provide accommodation” and is a win for employees with disabilities, especially those with mental health concerns.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

In its annual list of the top cases from the preceding year, Law Times News named Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), Meredith v Canada (Attorney General), Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan as three of 2015’s big cases. RavenLaw appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in all three of these cases, representing the Public Service Alliance of Canada as an intervener in the cases.

On February 2, 2016, James Cameron will be speaking at the Ontario Bar Association’s INSTITUTE conference on Privacy and the Workplace: The Scope and Limitations of Employee Privacy on the topic of “To what degree are employees entitled to privacy outside of business hours?”. The conference will explore where privacy fits in the employment relationship today, examining the implications of technology advancements on employee privacy and whether and how employers can take steps to mitigate employee conduct that takes away from business activities. More information about the conference is available here.

Employment lawyers are frequently asked to predict the length of reasonable notice that a court would award to an employee who has been terminated without cause. There is no set formula that applies to all cases, but lawyers have historically relied on the fact that, barring exceptional circumstances, courts generally don’t award more than 24 months’ notice. However, in Keenan v Canac Kitchens Ltd, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently cast doubt on that assumption by upholding an award of 26 months of reasonable notice, in a case without any identified exceptional circumstances.

Background

This was a claim by two very long-service employees. Mr. Keenan worked for Canac Kitchens since 1976, and his wife joined him in that work in 1983. Both plaintiffs performed supervisory roles for many years, and were the “face” of the company, acting as Canac’s representatives. From the start of their employment until 2007, they worked exclusively for Canac. As work slowed down, in 2007, they began to also perform work for a competitor. In 2009, they were both let go.

There were two key issues in the action for wrongful dismissal: whether the Keenans were dependent or independent contractors, and, if they were dependent contractors, what period of reasonable notice were they entitled to upon termination. On the first issue, the trial judge found that the Keenans met all the criteria to be considered dependent contractors, and were therefore entitled to reasonable notice. (For more information on dependent contractors, see: “Are you an employee, independent contractor or dependent contractor?”) On the second issue, the trial judge held that 26 months’ notice was reasonable in the circumstances, and therefore awarded $125,000 to the Keenans. Canac Kitchens appealed on both issues.

Ontario Court of Appeal’s Judgment

In its judgment rendered on January 26, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld both aspects of the trial judgment. Regarding the length of reasonable notice, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s award, given the relevant factors for calculating reasonable notice:

Lawrence Keenan and Marilyn Keenan worked for Canac for approximately 32 and 25 years respectively.  Together, their average length of service was 28.5 years.  They were 63 and 61 years of age at the time of termination.  They held supervisory, responsible positions in which they oversaw the installation of Canac’s products and met with Canac’s customers as its representatives.  For over a generation, they were Canac’s public face to the outside world.  Over a period of approximately thirty years – the entirety of their working lives – the Keenans’ income had come from Canac and they relied on that income to support themselves and their family.  Even during the approximately two years that they provided some services to Cartier, a “substantial majority” of the Keenans’ work continued to be done for Canac.  These circumstances justify an award in excess of 24 months and I see nothing wrong in the trial judge’s finding that 26 months’ notice was reasonable.

Opening the door for longer periods of reasonable notice?

Conventional wisdom in employment law has long been that employees are unlikely to receive awards of reasonable notice in excess of 24 months. By upholding a judgment of 26 months’ notice, the Court of Appeal has arguably opened the door for larger awards in wrongful dismissals involving older, long-service employees. This judgment could have significant implications for future cases, particularly in light of the aging workforce in Canada. Employees whose circumstances support it can now potentially pursue claims beyond what was previously thought to be a ‘ceiling’ of 24 months’ notice. Employment lawyers and workers’ advocates will closely watch this development in future cases, to determine whether this is part of a larger trend towards longer notice periods.

For more information about calculating reasonable notice, see: “What is reasonable notice?”

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Please note that our office will be closed on Friday, March 25, 2016 and Monday, March 28, 2016 in recognition of the Easter holiday.

The partners of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck are pleased to announce the selection of the successful 2016 Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Human Rights/Social Justice Internship candidates, Max Halparin and Samantha Dubord. Both Max and Samantha are in the second year of their studies at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. We congratulate Max and Samantha on their achievement and look forward to working with them this summer when the internship takes place.

This is the eleventh consecutive year that our firm has offered this Human Rights/Social Justice internship. Every summer, we provide paid employment to a student from the University of Ottawa Law School with placements in our firm and two social justice or human rights organizations. This year, Samantha and Max will be working with the National Educational Association of Disabled Students and a joint venture with the Canadian Council for Refugees, South Ottawa Legal Clinic and the University of Ottawa. Previous placements for our internship have included the Workers’ History Museum, International Development Research Centre, EGALE Canada, Amnesty International, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, the Council of Canadians, REACH Canada, and many other organizations which provide significant contributions in the areas of social justice and human rights.

On March 29, 2016, David Yazbeck will be speaking on “Blowing a Whistle at Work: Legal Rights and Obligations” at the Insight Information Workplace Rights & Accommodations Forum 2016. The Forum will provide a guideline for handling complicated workplace accommodations and rights issues through in-depth analysis into case law and best practices.

David’s presentation will examine whistleblowing, including when an employee can blow the whistle, key elements of a whistleblower policy, when an employee can “go public” and the legislation that exists to facilitate whistleblowing or provide protection in the case of reprisal for whistleblowing.