Morgan Rowe will be celebrating a Toronto launch for the paperback edition of her book, Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights through Narratives: Finding a Voice of Their Own, on September 9, 2015. The book explores the relationship between disability, human rights, and personal identity in the lives of Canadians with disabilities. The book launch is being hosted by Caversham Booksellers. More details about the event can be found here.

This Monday, as occurs the first Monday of every September, Canadians will celebrate Labour Day. The occasion is usually marked across the country by barbecues, get-togethers and marches, uniting families and friends before the official end of summer and the back-to-school rush. The holiday joins Family Day, Victoria Day, and the Civic Holiday, as vaguely-defined holidays with little meaning to most Canadians other than a day off.

In the case of Labour Day, the lack of recognition is perhaps unsurprising given its history. Labour Day was established in 1894, following the publication of the Report from the Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital in Canada. Among the many proposals, most of which were ignored, the Royal Commission proposed the establishment of a labour day:

“Your Commissioners recommend that one day in each year be set apart by proclamation to be observed throughout the Dominion as a statutory holiday, and that it be known as Labour Day”

As noted by Professor David Frank, there were many important and necessary reforms recommended by the Royal Commission, such as union recognition, workers’ compensation, minimum wages and child labour laws, which were either too difficult or too inconvenient to implement. A statutory holiday, in contrast, was both popular and easy to enact. (See Ontario, Family Day, 2007).

Unfortunately, rather than providing a day of rest and celebration of the labour movement, Labour Day actually has the opposite effect for many of the most vulnerable labourers in the country. Many retail giants use the holiday as an opportunity to increase sales, and major grocery stores often lobby to remain open. Hundreds of thousands of workers employed in restaurants, gas stations, stores and supermarkets will thus be required to work on a statutory holiday meant to celebrate improved working conditions of all workers.

Ways to celebrate this Labour Day

For those interested in celebrating Labour on Labour Day, all is not lost. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will be marching on Monday to mark Labour’s contribution to the betterment of working conditions for all workers. In Ottawa, the Labour Day March starts at noon at City Hall (Lisgar Entrance) and a Labour Day Picnic is scheduled at McNabb Park (Gladstone and Bronson) from 1PM-4:30PM.

Canadians could also spend Labour Day reading up on the labour-related issues in the upcoming Federal election. Some parties have proposed increases to the minimum wage and the abolition of unpaid internships. Hundreds of candidates with roots in the Labour movement are running, raising issues affecting workers and making them electoral issues. There are currently several challenges in the courts regarding labour-related legislation that is alleged to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—these issues can all be raised with current Members of Parliament and candidates.

Whatever else, Labour Day can be a day to reflect on the many advances that unions and workers have achieved. Historic achievements of the Labour movement, such as workers’ compensation, maternity leave, and pay equity, are well known and the effects of these gains continue to this day. There are also recent union victories that can be celebrated this Labour Day, such as decisions from the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal protecting workers from discrimination on the grounds of family status, and the Supreme Court’s recent recognition that workers have a Constitutional right to withhold their labour. In addition to these high-profile gains, unions and workers engage in daily challenges to unfair policies in the workplace, wrongful terminations, and fights for fairer wages that benefit all Canadians.

So, this Monday, reflect on the past, present, and future of the Labour movement, and have a safe and happy Labour Day.

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

David Yazbeck has been appointed to the Board of Directors of FOLKRUM, Ottawa’s community music venue. FOLKRUM is an independent, not-for-profit organization working toward the creation of a creativity hub and music facility to serve Ottawa, Outaouais, the valley and surrounding areas. David previously served as an Advisor to FOLKRUM.

Canadian law protects workers from being treated differently based on certain prohibited grounds of discrimination. The prohibited grounds are set out in human rights legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. They include race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and family status, among others. The Ontario Code also provides explicit protection on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

The following provides answers to some common questions about discrimination in the workplace. Questions about your particular circumstances should be reviewed with a lawyer experienced in employment and human rights matters.

How do I know if my employer is discriminating against me based on a prohibited ground?

It is sometimes easy to draw a link between an employer’s actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination. A policy refusing to hire workers of a particular nationality, for instance, is plainly discriminatory. But discrimination is rarely this blatant or obvious. More often we have to look at other evidence to determine whether discrimination is taking place, such as whether an employer applies its rules differently to individuals based on prohibited ground.

Differential treatment based on other factors can also be discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on individuals who share a characteristic protected by a prohibited ground. As noted below, workplace rules that appear to be neutral on their face can, nonetheless, be discriminatory. Drawing this link would require evidence that the employer’s conduct would have a disproportionate impact on an individual or group of individuals based on prohibited ground.

What if my employer claims its actions were based on something other than a prohibited ground?

Employers often claim that there were other, non-discriminatory reasons that justify their actions, such as a decision to terminate an employee. The law in Canada, however, is clear: discrimination has taken place so long as a prohibited ground is one of the factors behind the employer’s decision. For example, if there is evidence that an employer fired an employee in part because they were uncomfortable with her same-sex relationship, it is no defence to say that the employee also had performance issues.

Does it matter if my employer did not intend to discriminate against me?

It is not necessary that an employer intend to discriminate against an individual or group for the behaviour to be discriminatory. Workplace rules and policies that appear to be neutral can have unintended or disproportionate impact on particular groups. Some examples based on previous decisions include:

• A workplace rule that requires all employees to rotate through Saturday shifts may discriminate against certain religious groups.
• A seemingly objective fitness standard may discriminate if it disproportionately excludes women.
• A requirement that all employees perform a particular task may discriminate against an individual whose disability prevents them from doing so.

This is because the purpose of human rights legislation is not to lay blame but to eradicate discrimination.

My manager and co-workers are making offensive comments. Does it matter if they say they are joking?

Human rights legislation protects against harassment based on a prohibited ground. This includes a course of conduct or comments that someone knows are unwelcome, or ought reasonably to know are unwelcome. Whether jokes constitute harassment will depend on the circumstances, but the fact that someone says they were just joking is not an excuse.

Does my employer have to make changes in the workplace to accommodate my needs?

Human rights law also requires employers to take steps to ensure that all employees can participate fully in the workplace despite any limitations they may have that are linked to a prohibited ground. Human rights tribunals and courts have required employers to make physical changes to workplaces to accommodate an employee’s mobility issues. They have also required employers to provide employees with a shift schedule that accommodates their family obligations. Whether or not your employer must accommodate you in such a manner will depend on your particular situation. (Click here to read more about the employer’s duty to accommodate.)

Can an employer ever justify discriminatory conduct?

In certain circumstances an employer can justify a rule or policy that has a discriminatory impact on employees. For instance, an employer can try to prove that it requires a particular rule that has a discriminatory impact, or that it has done as much as it can to accommodate an employee. The test, however, is high, and requires an employer to demonstrate that it cannot accommodate further without suffering “undue hardship”.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced human rights lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a complaint of discrimination against your employer.

A scientist in the federal public service made national headlines last week when he was suspended with pay pending an investigation into a protest song he wrote about the Harper government. Tony Turner and a chorus of others appeared in a video performance of the song, “Harperman“, which was posted on YouTube last June and had garnered approximately 50,000 views. The video prompted an investigation, according to news reports, into whether Mr. Turner has violated the Values and Ethics Code that applies to employees in the federal government. Mr. Turner is being represented by his union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, in the investigation.

This case has brought widespread attention to the interesting issue of the political and free speech rights of public servants. Public service employees enjoy the right to free expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including political expression, but courts have held that these rights are not absolute: they are limited based on the duty of loyalty to the employer, as well as the need for a politically neutral public service.

How these competing interests are balanced in any one case is difficult to predict: the central question is whether the political activity or criticism impacts the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties as a public servant effectively, or whether it impacts the public perception of that ability. The following factors have been considered in past cases:

• The nature and scope of the political activity in question;
• The position and responsibilities of the employee engaging in that activity;
• Whether the individual identified himself or herself as a public servant in the course of the political activity; and,
• Whether the criticism was particularly sustained or vitriolic in nature.

The question remains how these considerations will be applied in Mr. Turner’s case, as the investigation has not yet concluded. One thing that appears certain is that the results of the investigation will be closely watched by the Canadian public—ironically, the suspension and investigation have brought far more public attention to the song than it would ever have otherwise received (in the few days since this story broke, “Harperman” has vaulted from 50,000 to over 400,000 views on YouTube).

Another question that remains: can someone really be disciplined for writing something this catchy?

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

On July 21, David Yazbeck will be moderating a Lancaster House Conference on “Minding Your Own Business: Privacy rules on collecting, using, and disclosing employee information” The conference will discuss the potential conflict between employee privacy and employer concerns about the impact employees’ online activity can have on their reputations. The panel will discuss the law related to background checks, including “social media checks”, the latest cases on surveillance and biometric identification technologies, the legal rules with respect to personal information on the employer’s devises, and an employer’s ability to access employees’ medical information.

More information about the conference can be found here.

Andrew Astritis participated as a panelist in a recent webinar by the Canadian Bar Association on family status accommodation. The webinar provided an update on cases on this issue from across Canada, including a discussion of recent cases that have been decided since the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone. For information or to purchase a copy of the recording, please visit the CBA website.

On June 11, David Yazbeck will be moderating a Lancaster House Conference on “The ABCs of IMEs: When are they useful, when are the required?” The conference will discuss the ins and outs of employer requests for independent medical examinations (“IMEs”) to verify or obtain information about an employee’s medical condition. The panel will discuss the ground rules for employer requests for IMEs, whether such requests are becoming more common, whether IMEs should be sought only as a “last resort”, how the parties can ensure that privacy rights are being respected in the IME process, and what consequences an employee may face on refusing an IME.

More information about the conference can be found here.

Live-in caregivers sadly face the risk of abuse and exploitation due to their vulnerable position, an issue most commonly arising in the criminal or immigration context. A recent decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, PN v FR and another, 2015 BCHRT 60 , addressed this issue through a human rights lens. The Tribunal allowed a complaint of discrimination and harassment from a live-in nanny who was subjected to horrific treatment by the family employing her. The decision highlights both the benefits and the limitations of using human rights law to redress exploitation of vulnerable workers.

Background

The Complainant, PN, was a live-in caregiver from the Philippines who worked for the Respondents in Hong Kong for a year before moving with them to Canada. The Tribunal’s account of PN’s treatment during her employment with the Respondents is harrowing: she borrowed money to pay for the training and travel necessary to obtain the job with the Respondents, and she was paid roughly $600 per week while working more than 17 hours per day. She was demeaned and berated by the wife and sexually exploited by the husband. After a year working for the family in Hong Kong, she was pressured to accompany the family to Canada, and signed a contract agreeing to repay visa and travel costs in excess of $13,000 if she changed her mind about moving with them.

In Canada, she lived with the family in a hotel suite, sleeping on a couch with no privacy. After six weeks in which the abuse and exploitation continued, she fled, moving into a women’s shelter. At the shelter, she was able to access counselling and legal representation, and brought a complaint of discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code.

Decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal found that the Complainant had been sexually harassed and exploited by the Respondents as her employer. The Tribunal held that PN’s protected characteristics were factors in this treatment:

PN is a young mother from the Philippines without supports in Canada. This gave rise to a situation where it was possible to take unfair advantage of her. The way that MR treated her and the expectations of PN working all the time at the beck and call of the respondents have their roots in her hiring from the Philippines and the factors emphasized of youth, hard work and unlikeliness to complain, which are characteristics attributed to Filipino workers by stereotype and prejudice.

The Tribunal further found that the Respondents retaliated against PN by demanding repayment of the costs of her travel to Canada, in response to the filing of the human rights complaint.

In light of the egregious nature of the discriminatory conduct, the significant impact that it had on PN, and her vulnerable position, the Tribunal awarded $50,000 in damages.

A new avenue of redress for exploited, vulnerable workers?

In addition to the exceptionally high damages award, the Tribunal’s decision is significant for its analysis of the nexus between PN’s mistreatment by her employer and her protected characteristics. The Tribunal found that PN’s status (a young, Filipino mother) created an opportunity for the Respondents to take unfair advantage of her. A similar line of analysis could potentially be applied to other categories of vulnerable workers in Canada: for example, migrant agricultural workers are often foreign nationals with precarious immigration status and limited resources. Thus, this decision could point towards opportunities for other workers to seek redress under human rights legislation when they are mistreated or exploited by their employers due to their vulnerable position.

However, the case also highlights the limitations of the human rights regime as an avenue to fight against exploitation of workers. For example, the Tribunal had no authority to grant PN immigration or employment status in Canada. Moreover, a significant portion of the mistreatment suffered by PN predated her arrival in Canada, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction to award a remedy regarding those events. Thus, a human rights complaint presents a promising, but imperfect, avenue to potentially seek damages against employers who have taken advantage of vulnerable workers in Canada.

UPDATE: OPT v Presteve Foods Ltd­—another victory for exploited foreign workers

Subsequent to the decision in PN, above,  a similar case was decided by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in OPT v Presteve Foods Ltd, 2015 HRTO 675 . In that case, two temporary foreign workers complained that they were subject to repeated, unwanted sexual advances and sexual assaults by their employer. They felt unable to refuse his sexual solicitations and advances because of threats that they would be returned to their home country. The employer was criminally charged in connection with these incidents and similar assaults on other workers, and pled guilty to some charges.

Like the PN case, this decision is remarkable for the exceptionally high damages award: the Tribunal found that the seriousness of the conduct was “unprecedented”, and that the complainants were particularly vulnerable due to their status as migrant workers. On the basis of these considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect in the amount of $150,000 to one of the workers, and $50,000 to the second.

Despite this significant damages award, this case further illustrates the inherent limitations of the human rights forum to address the broader issues facing foreign workers. Justicia for Migrant Workers intervened in OPT and asked the Tribunal to grant public interest remedies related to the temporary foreign worker program. The Tribunal’s response to this intervention demonstrates that many systemic remedies to the exploitation of foreign workers are beyond the scope of the human rights regime:

Finally, I was invited by the intervenor to make comment upon certain aspects of temporary foreign worker programs in Canada. As these programs fall within federal jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for me to do so… I have commented in this Decision and in my decision in Peart v. Ontario (Attorney General), above, regarding the particular and special vulnerabilities of migrant workers in Ontario, especially in light of the closed work permit that requires them to be tied to one employer and so be under the constant threat and fear of losing their employment and being repatriated without reason and without any avenue for appeal or review. Dr. Preibisch testified that, in her opinion, it may be helpful to institute a registry for companies who employ migrant workers, such as the one that exists in Manitoba, and to take other steps identified by her to address the vulnerabilities of migrant workers. However, I do not have jurisdiction in this proceeding to make any such order. As a result, the intervenor’s request is denied.

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

On May 12, 2015, Wassim Garzouzi presented on Human Rights at the Workplace. The panel presentation was hosted by the North Bay Chapter of the Human Resources Professional Association and included counsel from both labour and management side firms.