On December 17, 2014, David Yazbeck will be moderating the Lancaster House Panel on Harassment and the Toxic Work Environment: Examining Rights and Remedies. This is one of a series of audio conferences presented by Lancaster House on a variety of topics affecting the workplace. Mr. Yazbeck has often acted as a moderator and speaker on these conferences.
For more information about this particular audio conference, visit the Lancaster House website here.
On December 11, 2014, Lancaster House is holding its annual Toronto Labour Arbitration conference, with workshops taking place before and after. David Yazbeck will be acting as the Union-side Co-chair for the conference and will participate as a moderator on a number of panels. Andrew Astritis will be speaking as union counsel on the panel dealing with family status discrimination.
Lancaster House is a leader in providing information on labour, employment and human rights law. Both Mr. Yazbeck and Mr. Astritis have participated in Lancaster House activities before.
The scheme recently enacted under the Canada Labour Code to address workplace violence was recently subject to its first interpretation by the courts: in PSAC v Attorney General of Canada, 2014 FC 1066, the Federal Court considered Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, which imposes a host of obligations on employers to prevent and respond to workplace violence. The Court’s decision affirmed the broad definition of workplace violence under the Regulations, and the mandatory obligations on employers to appoint an impartial person to investigate employee complaints.
Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations
Part XX of the Regulations, titled “Violence Prevention in the Work Place”, was enacted in 2008. It forms part of the health and safety scheme under the Code, and therefore its purpose is to prevent accidents and injury to health.
Part XX defines workplace violence as “any action, conduct, threat or gesture of a person towards an employee in their work place that can reasonably be expected to cause harm, injury or illness to that employee.” The Regulations impose several obligations on employers to address workplace violence, including:
Section 20.9 of the Regulations requires the employer to appoint a “competent person” to investigate any allegation of workplace violence that comes to the employer’s attention. A “competent person” is defined as someone who is impartial and seen to be impartial, has expertise related to workplace violence, and has knowledge of the legislation. It was the interpretation of this provision that formed the subject matter of the recent Federal Court decision.
Federal Court judgment interpreting Part XX of the Regulations
On January 27, 2014, an Appeals Officer of the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada issued the Tribunal’s first decision interpreting Part XX of the Regulations. The Appeals Officer found that the complaint at issue in the case—a complaint of psychological harassment by a supervisor—did not constitute an allegation of workplace violence, and therefore the employer was under no duty to appoint an investigator. The Federal Court overturned that decision in its judgment, dated November 13, 2014. The Court’s judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 20.9 in several key respects, and supports a broad reading of the Regulations and the obligations on employers to respond to complaints of workplace violence.
The Court clearly held that the definition of workplace violence is broad enough to include harassing conduct that causes mental or psychological harm, thus flatly rejecting the Appeals Officer’s finding that workplace violence excludes harassment. The Court held that “to find otherwise would unduly restrict the definition of work place violence and not give a purposive construction to that definition.”
The Court found that employers are permitted to engage in fact-finding in order to facilitate possible resolution of employee complaints, but an employer representative cannot act as the investigator, unless the employee agrees that the representative is an impartial person. The Court therefore held that the member of management who purported to conduct an investigation in this case was not competent to do so.
The Court made a clear finding that, unless it is plain and obvious on the face of the complaint that it does not relate to workplace violence, the employer is under a mandatory duty to appoint an impartial person to investigate the complaint. The Court therefore overturned the Appeals Officer’s decision, which permitted the employer to conduct its own inquiry into the bona fides of the complaint before deciding whether to appoint an investigator.
Important gains for federally regulated workers
The Court’s conclusions in this case corrected obvious errors in the Appeals Officer’s decision: the finding that harassment may constitute violence within the meaning of the Code brings this area of the law in line with the Tribunal’s past cases interpreting similar provisions. Interestingly, it is also consistent with the definition of workplace violence articulated by the government agency established to promote workplace health and safety—the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety defines workplace violence broadly, and as including harassment and verbal abuse.
This judgment was nonetheless an important gain for workers, because it grants access to the mechanisms under Part XX to seek redress for harassment in the workplace. Harassment is a difficult issue, and it is often inadequately addressed by employers’ internal harassment policies. It is therefore encouraging to know that the process under Part XX—particularly, the mandatory appointment of an impartial investigator—is now available for federally regulated workers that experience harassment. The regime under Part XX differs significantly from traditional mechanisms to address harassment: the emphasis is on taking measures to prevent a recurrence. Time will tell whether this approach, rather than one focused on discipline or monetary compensation, is more effective at resolving situations of workplace harassment.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On November 27, 2014, Arbitrator Frederick von Veh issued a decision reinstating a Canada Post motorized letter carrier after he was terminated for working with an expired driver’s license. The Arbitrator found that the employee had not acted deliberately and that he had simply forgotten to renew his license – “he made a mistake”. Arbitrator von Veh concluded that inadvertent errors do not constitute “major misconduct”, a term often used by employers to justify discipline. As a result, the employee was reinstated.
At the hearing, the employee was represented by his union representative, Don Foreman of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (“CUPW”), and Wassim Garzouzi and Dayna Steinfeld from our firm.
On December 9, David Yazbeck will be appearing in Federal Court on a judicial review of a decision of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. In the decision under review, the Commissioner dismissed a complaint by Charbel El-Helou that the Courts Administration Service took reprisals against him after he made protected disclosures of wrongdoing, pursuant to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (“PSDPA”).
Our firm is arguing on behalf of Mr. El-Helou that the decision of the Commissioner should be set aside because Mr. El-Helou was treated unfairly in the process. The judicial review also raises important questions involving the proper legal framework for determining if reprisals were taken against a whistleblower after making a protected disclosure under the PSDPA.
On November 24, 2014, the Canadian Artists’ Representation/Le Front des artistes canadiens (CARFAC) and the Regroupement des artistes visuels du Québec (RAAV) reached a tentative agreement with the National Gallery of Canada on the terms and conditions for the exhibition and reproduction of works of art, as well as the provision of professional services by living Canadian artists at the National Gallery. As CARFAC/RAAV explain, “The parties are proud to have reached this ground-breaking agreement to remunerate living Canadian artists, a historic milestone that will undoubtedly contribute to the long-term sustainability of the visual arts in Canada.” The agreement will now proceed to a ratification vote by members.
The ability of CARFAC/RAAV to reach this historic agreement is due in large part to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Artists’ Representation v National Gallery of Canada in June of this year. CARFAC/RAAV were represented by David Yazbeck, Michael Fisher and Wassim Garzouzi from RavenLaw in this successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
The right to work in a safe and healthy environment is a cornerstone of modern employment rights. One of the ways that governments ensure and promote the health and safety of workers is through legislation. For employees who work in federally regulated workplaces, the applicable legislation is the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the occupational health and safety provisions of the Code is to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment.
On October 31, 2014, changes to the occupational health and safety provisions of the Code took effect. These changes have the potential to erode some of the key rights that workers had under the old version of the Code and may work against the Code’s stated purpose of preventing accidents and injury to health.
The provisions of the Code apply to workers who are employed in federally regulated industries, including banks, railways, highway and air transport, radio and television broadcasting, and (for some purposes) employees of the federal government as well as Crown corporations and agencies.
The occupational health and safety provisions are contained in Part II of the Code. These provisions impose duties on employers and employees to ensure the health and safety of everyone in the workplace. The Code establishes three basic health and safety rights for employees:
The recent Code amendments contain a number of significant changes to the health and safety provisions. Perhaps the most significant changes are those which limit an employee’s ability to refuse unsafe work.
The definition of danger is significant for accessing many of the rights contained in the Code, including the right to refuse unsafe work. Previously, “danger” extended to situations involving exposures that could result in chronic illness, disease or damage to the reproductive system. Under the new definition, for a situation to be a “danger”, there must be serious or imminent risk to life or health.
Previously, if an employer investigated a work refusal and determined that there was a danger, it was mandatory for a health and safety officer to investigate the matter in the presence of the employee. The amendments create two significant changes to this process: first, it is now the Minister of Labour or the Minister’s delegate that performs the investigation. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the investigation is not mandatory—rather, the Minister can dismiss complaints without investigating if he or she is of the view that the matter can be dealt with under another procedure of the Code. The Minister can also dismiss a complaint without investigation if he or she is of the view that the matter is trivial, frivolous or vexatious or if the refusal to work is made in bad faith. If the Minister does not proceed with an investigation, the employee can no longer refuse to work.
The new provisions of the Code only recently came into effect and it is difficult to say exactly how workers will be affected. It remains to be determined whether the changes to the definition of danger will limit the circumstances in which workers can refuse work on the basis of a dangerous situation in the workplace, or whether courts will interpret “danger” in essentially the same way as under the old definition. While the implications of the change to the definition of danger are uncertain at this point in time, it does seem clear that the new powers of the Minister to dismiss complaints without investigation bestow wide-ranging discretion on the Minister. As an employee cannot continue to refuse to work if the Minister does not proceed with an investigation, the Minister’s ability to dismiss complaints without investigation could result in workers returning to unsafe conditions. Worker advocates will be closely following how these amendments are interpreted and applied by employers and the courts.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On November 8, 2014, James Cameron from Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP will be speaking before members of the Association of Professional Executive of the Public Service of Canada APEX. James’ presentation on “Rights, Responsibilities, and Realities – Employment Law Matters for Government Executives” will highlight some surprising realities for APEX members.
Government executives may be surprised to learn that as they progress up the hierarchy, their access to basic employment law rights may actually narrow. What employment law rights and responsibilities government executives still possess or may access will be the focal point of this talk. The members will hear about basic legal principles governing demotions, terminations, changes to duties, severance packages, and other topics. Successful negotiation strategies, based on real-life experience with many Government Executives, will be discussed.
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP is pleased to announce the launch of the Alison Dewar Scholarship in Women’s Equality, Labour and Human Rights Law.
This scholarship was created by the firm in partnership with the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), in memory of our dear friend and colleague who died on October 17, 2013. The scholarship will be available annually to a female student at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law who demonstrates a commitment to pursuing a career in women’s equality and union-side labour, workers’ rights or human rights law. Alison devoted herself to this work and our firm is excited to support future lawyers who share her passion for these issues.
For more information on the scholarship please visit the University of Ottawa’s scholarship and bursary webpage <https://bourses.uottawa.ca/p/a/13364/> or contact the Financial Aid Administrator at the University of Ottawa’s Common Law Section. The deadline to apply is November 30, 2014.
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck is pleased to announce that David Yazbeck has been appointed to a working group established by the CSA Group to develop and publish a whistleblower guideline for Canada. The CSA Group (formerly the Canadian Standards Association) is a world leader in establishing standards in a variety of areas. Recently, CSA Group, together with the Bureau de normalisation du Quebec, established a national standard of Canada in relation to psychological health and safety in the workplace.
David Yazbeck is one of the leading practitioners in the area of whistleblower law. He is one of many experts or interested persons who have been appointed to the CSA Group working group to establish a whistleblower guideline.