We are now months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and it can feel at times like we are living in a completely different world. One can wonder whether life will ever be the same.

It appears, however, there are some things that never change—as Foodora couriers in Canada learned recently, one of those things is the lengths to which some employers will go to avoid a union drive. Foodora has unceremoniously fled the country, rather than face the prospect of collective bargaining.

Foodora and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Foodora and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) had been engaged in a long battle over CUPW’s application for certification as bargaining agent of the food delivery app’s couriers in Canada. The union scored a historic victory in that battle in February of this year, when the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the couriers were dependent contractors for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, and were therefore able to access the collective bargaining regime under that legislation.

Two months later, Foodora announced that it was closing all operations in Canada effective May 11, 2020, shortly after which it filed for bankruptcy protection. To justify its decision, the company pointed to economic reasons and the supposed saturation of the Canadian food delivery app market. The suspicious timing of Foodora’s move was lost on absolutely no one, however, and its claims of economic hardship were particularly unconvincing, since the food delivery business has exploded during the pandemic.

Foodora’s History of Shutting Down

If there were any doubt about Foodora’s true motivations, the company has a history of shutting down in the face of a legal challenge to its misclassification of employees. In Australia, like in Canada, Foodora attempted to characterize its couriers as independent contractors. When Australia’s Fair Work ombudsman challenged that classification, Foodora fled the jurisdiction.

CUPW has, unsurprisingly, filed an unfair labour practice complaint, arguing that the decision to shut down was motivated at least in part by a desire to avoid unionization. Unfortunately, though, even if this complaint is successful, the union and its members can only hope to receive some monetary compensation. Although CUPW has asked for reinstatement of employees in its complaint, the labour board likely cannot order Foodora to restore its Canadian operations, a remedy it has declined to grant in the past.

Lessons to be Learned

What are the lessons to be learned from the Foodora unionization drive, and its abrupt end? Some have argued, with good reason, that this case exposes the obvious flaws in our labour relations regime. The odds are stacked against unions and their members, particularly in certain sectors like the ‘gig’ economy, making it virtually impossible to successfully unionize. As a result, the legislature needs to seriously consider alternate modes of organizing and bargaining, so that workers like the Foodora couriers are not left behind. (See here for an interesting paper on organizing gig economy workers, published by the ILO.)

Another important takeaway from this case is that we need better oversight of businesses that improperly classify employees as independent contractors. The protections under the Labour Relations Act, as well as minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, are afforded to “employees”, which, in the case of the Labour Relations Act, expressly includes “dependent contractors”. To avoid these protections, many companies characterize workers as independent contractors in their written contracts, or simply treat them as such, even when the relationship clearly meets the definition of an employment relationship.

Indeed, Foodora appears to be an example of a business whose success depends upon misclassifying its employees. The company’s hasty withdrawal from Canada following the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s ruling suggests that this ending to the Foodora story was, therefore, inevitable. If a company can only turn a profit by evading employment standards protections for its workers, it arguably should not be operating at all.

Employee Misclassification

This result, however inevitable, came at considerable expense to Foodora’s couriers and their union. The onus should not be on them to engage in a months-long legal battle to confirm their proper classification as employees. Employee misclassification appears to be rampant in the ‘gig’ economy, and so the time has long since past for the government to take a more proactive role in scrutinizing these businesses, to ensure that minimum employment standards are being met. Only significant oversight and serious penalties will stop other employers in the gig economy from using misclassification to their advantage.

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

Many workers have had their vacation plans put on hold by the COVID-19 pandemic, but still have vacation time to use. Here are the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about taking vacations with pay.

How much vacation does my employer have to give me?

Your employment contract and any applicable employer policies may outline your vacation entitlements. If you’re a unionized worker, check your collective agreement.

In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act sets the bare minimum terms and conditions of employment for most workers. It guarantees an employee who has worked for an employer for less than five years at least two weeks of paid vacation after each year of employment. An employee who has worked for an employer for more than five years is guaranteed at least three weeks of paid vacation a year. These are minimums. An employer may provide more vacation to its employees, and some employees, including those represented by a trade union, may be able to negotiate greater vacation entitlements.

Some Ontario workers are exempt from this and other parts of the Employment Standards Act. The list includes lawyers, registered massage therapists and commissioned salespersons as well as workers employed in commercial fishing and on most farms. If you are one of these workers, your vacation entitlement is subject only to negotiation with the employer.

Other Ontario workers are employed by federally regulated employers such as banks, telecommunications companies and First Nations band councils. For these workers, the Canada Labour Code guarantees similar entitlements as the Ontario legislation, except that the federal legislation additionally entitles employees with 10 or more years of service to at least four weeks of vacation with pay.

What if I’ve been on leave because of COVID-19?

Some workers are eligible for infectious disease emergency leave under the Employment Standards Act or leave related to COVID-19 under Canada Labour Code as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Workers can postpone their vacations until after the end of this leave, even if they were required to have taken it within the duration of the leave.

Is it the same for other types of leaves, too?

Yes. The Employment Standards Act entitles employees to various unpaid leaves of absence like pregnancy and parental leave, family responsibility leave and sick leave. Federally regulated employees are guaranteed similar entitlements under the Canada Labour Code, in addition to leave that enables Métis, Inuit and First Nations workers to engage traditional practices including hunting, fishing and harvesting.

Workers can defer their vacation during any such leaves. An employer cannot force employees to take vacation instead of any other leave entitlements.

I’m working from home. Can I wait until my office reopens to schedule vacation?

That may be up to your employer. An employer has the right to determine when any of its employees take vacation, unless an employee’s contract of employment or collective agreement says otherwise.

The only limit on this discretion is that employer’s must allow employees to take their vacation within ten months after the year in which it was earned.

You also cannot be forced to split up your vacation. An employer has to assign vacation in a single period of at least one week, under the Employment Standards Act, unless the employee agrees otherwise. The Canada Labour Code requires employer to approve vacation in a single period unless the employee asks to take it in more than one period.

If work has slowed down because of the coronavirus, employers may want employees to use up vacation while lockdown measures are in place. That said, an employer will typically attempt to agree with their employees when their vacation will be scheduled. In unionized workplaces, vacation may be scheduled on the basis of seniority.

What if I travel for vacation this summer?

You may want to stick close to home due to the COVID-19 public health precautions, even if lockdown restrictions are easing up in some places. The Ontario government is still advising residents to stay at home as much as possible and practice physical distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19. Anyone who may have been exposed to COVID-19 is advised to get tested and self-isolate for at least 14 days. The federal government is advising that we avoid all non-essential travel outside of Canada. It is presently mandatory for all travellers entering Canada to isolate or quarantine themselves for 14 days to limit the spread of COVD-19.

 If I don’t use it, can I lose it?

Your employment contract may limit the amount of vacation with pay you can carry over from one year to the next. If that is the case, then you may be required to forfeit any unused vacation entitlements beyond the minimum guarantees in the Employment Standards Act or Canada Labour Code. An employer can never deprive employees of these minimum statutory entitlements.

When do I get my vacation pay?

Vacation pay is due at the start of your vacation or the next regular pay day, although in some cases Ontario employers will pay their employees the vacation pay that has accrued in each pay period. Workers entitled to two weeks’ vacation must receive vacation pay of at least 4% of their gross wages in the prior year. Workers entitled to three weeks’ vacation must receive at least 6% of their gross wages in the prior year. Federally regulated employees entitled to four weeks of vacation with pay must receive at least 8% of their gross wages in the prior year.

If I don’t take vacation, do I still get vacation pay?

 Vacation pay accrues on wages earned as soon as you start working. The employer holds onto it until you take vacation. You can agree to forego vacation, if the Director of Employment Standards approves, but your employer cannot forego paying your vacation pay. But, really, you should take your vacation.

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

Have you missed the deadline to apply for long term disability (LTD) benefits? There might still be a recourse available.

What does the law say?

Law makers realized that in some cases, claimants will miss the deadline to apply for LTD benefits even though they acted reasonably. A late claim could be devastating for individuals who can no longer return to work and are denied benefits. Many provinces have enacted laws, such as the Courts of Justice Act and the Insurance Act in Ontario, which allow courts to grant “relief from forfeiture.” This relief is intended for individuals who will be disproportionately penalized for failing to respect the insurance plan deadlines, especially in cases where leniency will not cause significant harm to the insurer.

How will a court decide?

The decision whether or not to grant relief is entirely discretionary and will turn on the facts of each specific case. However, courts have developed a test to determine if claimants acted reasonably and if granting the relief will unjustly harm the insurer (Kozel v. The Personal Insurance Company).

Courts will only grant relief from forfeiture if there was imperfect compliance with a policy term, not if there was a breach of an important part of the contract. In general, missing the window to claim benefits has been considered imperfect compliance (Falk Bros. Industries Ltd. v. Elance Steel Fabricating Co.).

There are 3 main factors that the court will assess in determining whether to grant relief from forfeiture:

1. conduct of the applicant;
2. gravity of the breach; and
3. disparity between the possible harm to the denied claimant and the harm to the insurer.

1. Conduct of the applicant

First, courts will analyze the reasonableness of the claimant’s actions. They are likely to consider the following issues:

• How quickly did you act once you realized the claim was late?

Claimants are expected to act expeditiously once they realize that they have missed the deadline to claim LTD benefits. The line here is not clear-cut, but courts have found that claimants acted unreasonably when they showed “ongoing negligence” or when they learned of overdue payments but then still took many months to respond.

• What if you did not know you were eligible?

In Dube v. RBC Life Insurance Co., the claimant had received conflicting information regarding his LTD benefits and then left an envelope containing important information unopened for many months. As a result, he was not aware that he could make a claim, even though he was in touch with the employer and the insurance company. The court found that while he had not been “the model of perfect diligence” but that his actions were not unreasonable. They granted him relief.

• What if your employer gave you the wrong advice?

The Court might be less likely to fault employees in cases where employers were partially responsible for the lapse. Although it is not firmly established that employers have a duty of care to assist employees in applying for benefits, the Ontario Superior Court has referenced such a duty in some recent cases (see, e.g., Ferguson v Halton, 2018 ONSC 5675).

2. Gravity of the breach

Second, courts will examine the potential harm to the insurer if the application is allowed after the deadline. The insurer could argue that given the delay, it lost the ability to make a timely medical investigation or to assist the claimant in rehabilitation in order to avoid a longer-term absence from work. That’s what the insurer argued in Nguyen v. SSQ Life Insurance Co., but the Ontario Superior Court found that although there was harm, it was not sufficient to prevent a claim for relief from forfeiture and the late claim was allowed to proceed.

3. Balancing of damages

Third, courts will compare the harm to the applicant caused by the loss of coverage with the harm to the insurer by having to consider the late application. At this stage, courts will evaluate the income the claimant will lose if relief is not granted and weigh it against the damages suffered by the insurer. 

CONCLUSION

Relief from forfeiture is entirely discretionary and it is up to the court to assess the particular details of each case and decide whether to grant it. In general, Ontario courts seem to be showing some leniency for late claimants. If you have missed the deadline to apply for LTD and been denied benefits as a result, consult a lawyer.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by summer student Anna Rotman.

In a decision released June 17, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that if any element of a termination provision in an employment contract runs afoul of the Employment Standards Act, the whole termination provision is invalid.

In Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. the Plaintiff sued his employer after he was dismissed with two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice following eight months of service. The Plaintiff’s employment contract had a termination with notice provision, and also had a termination for cause provision. On a summary judgement motion, the Defendant Employer conceded that the termination for cause provision violated the Employment Standards Act and was invalid, but argued that it was separate from the termination with notice provision that the employer was relying on in the case. The employer also relied on a severability clause contained in the agreement.

The motions judge found that the two provisions were sufficiently separate that the termination-for-cause provision did not cause the termination with notice provision to be invalid despite its violation of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal overturned that finding. The Court found that an employment agreement must be interpreted as a whole. The fact that two termination clauses are contained in different paragraphs in the contract, or under different subheadings, does not affect the interpretation of the contract. The termination provisions must be read as a whole if the policy goal of discouraging employers from drafting contracts that violate the Act is to be met. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the employer could not rely on a severability provision to cure otherwise illegal contract clauses.

This decision clarifies a somewhat unsettled area of the law of wrongful dismissal. It reaffirms the principle that a termination provision in an employment contract may be invalidated if any termination situation would result in the employee receiving less than they are entitled to under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as an important reminder that employment contracts will not be enforced where they violate the basic protections in the Act. If you have been terminated, you should seek legal advice and not rely solely on the words in your employment contract.

[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, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board found that an employer’s actions, which made it more difficult for an employee to participate in a health and safety complaint hearing, were reprisals and in violation of the Canada Labour Code.

The employee had been summonsed to attend as a witness for a two-day hearing before the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal. Because he worked an afternoon shift, the employee requested a shift change so that he would not have to return to work after the hearing. The employer, Canada Border Services Agency, denied the request and ordered the employee to return to the workplace immediately after the end of the hearing. The employee followed this direction but received a one-day suspension because he did not arrive in the workplace by 5:25PM, as the employer preferred.

The Board concluded that both the refusal to allow the employee a shift change and the suspension were reprisals for the employee’s participation in the health and safety hearing. These actions therefore violated the provisions of the Canada Labour Code which protect employees from being penalized for testifying in a proceeding under the Code.

Specifically, the Board found that the decision to deny the shift change was inconsistent with the employer’s practice for other employees who were allowed shift changes to attend hearings. It also held that the imposition of a 5:25PM return-to-work time was arbitrary and in bad faith as the employee had no control over when the hearing would end. Given the unreasonableness of the employer’s actions in both circumstances, the Board concluded that it was not convinced that the employee’s participation in a health and safety hearing played no part in the employer’s decisions to penalize him.

The complainant and the Public Service Alliance of Canada were represented by Morgan Rowe.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Simcha Walfish

Paramedics working for Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS will not be subject to Ontario’s strict caps for increases in salary and compensation. In a recent arbitration for the Union’s first collective agreement, arbitrator John McNamee ruled that the paramedics employed by Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS are not subject to Bill 124, Ontario’s public sector wage restraint legislation. Had they been subject to Bill 124, it would have resulted in the Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS workers being paid less than other paramedics. The arbitrator reasoned that paying paramedics working in an Indigenous community less than other Ontario paramedics would be discriminatory.

Bill 124 became law in Ontario in November 2019 and imposed caps of 1% on increases—a rate lower than inflation—to compensation for a wide range of public sector workers. A coalition of unions is challenging the legislation in court. Bill 124 exempts Indigenous communities and employers controlled by Indigenous communities from the legislation. This was the first reported decision on the exemptions for Indigenous communities, as the paramedics at Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS sought increases of over 1%.

The EMS is fully funded by the province through an agreement between the Government of Ontario and the Oneida Nation. The EMS operates on the Oneida Settlement, land purchased by a group of Oneida who moved to Ontario from New York State in the 1840s. The Oneida Nation of the Thames has 2172 residents and 6270 members. Because the land was purchased by the Oneida and not “reserved” by the government, it is not a reserve. However, it has been treated by the Canadian government as a reserve.

The employer argued that Bill 124 applied because the Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS is a distinct entity that employs the paramedics; they are not employed by the Oneida Nation itself. It further argued that the ambulance service is not, itself, an Indigenous community and so it should be subject to the legislation.

The arbitrator rejected the employer’s argument. He found that, with the “extremely broad” definition of Indigenous employers and the fact that majority of the EMS’ members are chosen by the Oneida Nation, the legislation clearly did not apply. Further, he reasoned that this situation was exactly what the exemption was created for—that is, services funded by Ontario but carried on by an Indigenous community.

The arbitrator accepted that Ontario’s financial condition is “not at all healthy” but did not believe that this, nor the stresses of COVID-19, meant giving a reasonable award to these 18 employees, would “strain the government’s finances to the breaking point.” While COVID-19 did “immeasurably” worsen Ontario’s financial condition, he added that it also poses serious health hazards to the employees as paramedics.

The arbitrator took notice of the social context of the collective agreement, that Indigenous peoples have “not been well-served by the country as a whole, and have struggled to maintain their identity and culture in a society which has, by and large, treated them as irrelevant.” For this reason, creating EMS services by and for Indigenous people, staffed mostly by Indigenous people, is clearly a good thing. Further, any idea that employees of Indigenous communities should be paid less than EMS employees that work elsewhere is “in and of itself, discriminatory.”

As the fight against Bill 124 goes through the courts, this decision is an encouraging sign that arbitrators will not take a narrow approach to the exemptions. It is also a strong statement on the necessity for pay equity for Indigenous workers.

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

You are disabled and cannot work.  Your workplace provides Long Term Disability (LTD) coverage as part of your health benefits package.  If you are unable to work for health reasons, the LTD insurance benefits coverage should provide you with income protection while you are unable to work for reasons related to your illness or disability.  You apply for LTD benefits but the insurance company denies your claim.  What can you do?

1. Do not give up!

First and foremost, do not give up.  A high percentage of LTD claims are denied for a variety of reasons.  Insurance companies save money when individuals simply accept the denial or do not have the resources to contest their decision.  Most LTD insurance policies provide for an internal appeal process which must be started within a specific time frame, usually 60 days.  An individual may also choose to proceed immediately to litigation.  We recommend consulting with legal counsel to discuss your available options.

2. Internal Appeal

As stated above, most LTD insurance policies provide an internal appeal process where individuals can contest the insurance company’s denial of their claim.  It is important to remember that because this is an internal process, the insurance company is reviewing its own decision. It is therefore unsurprising that a significant amount of appeals are denied.  We often do not recommend proceeding with the internal appeal process unless you have new, additional medical information to provide to the insurance company during the appeal process.  A repetition or reframing of information already provided is unlikely to be successful in convincing the insurance company to reverse its initial decision.

Federal public servants have access to an additional step in the appeal process.  Depending on whether they are covered by the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (for non-unionized employees) or by the Disability Insurance Plan (for unionized employees) individuals may request an independent review of their case.  The Board of Trustees of the PSMIP or the DI Plan Board of Management then have the ability to make recommendations to the insurance company regarding the case. The insurance companies responsible for these plans most often accept the recommendations following these reviews.  If you are unionized, contact your union to see if they are able to assist.  If you are not unionized or if your union is unable to assist, we recommend you contact experienced legal counsel for advice.

3. Litigation

Your best option to successfully challenge the denial of your LTD claim and enforce your rights may be to sue the insurance company in court. This can be done immediately after the initial denial or following an unsuccessful appeal. Filing a Statement of Claim against an insurance company starts a legal process where various steps are required to be taken by both parties prior to trial.

While proceeding with litigation may be a daunting process, it is important to know that the litigation process is designed to encourage the parties to settle the case.  For example, in Ontario, mediation is mandatory. Mediation is a process for resolving disputes where the parties meet with an independent mediator who assists the parties in reaching an agreement. It is our experience that many cases settle at mediation.  However, if a mutually satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the case proceeds to the next step of the process.  There are further opportunities to discuss settlement throughout the litigation process, up until trial.

4. The clock is ticking…

Regardless of how you decide to challenge the insurance company’s denial of your LTD benefits, it is very important to keep track of your timelines.  Proceeding through the internal appeal process does not necessarily stop the clock for starting a legal action in court.  Generally, you have two (2) years from the initial denial of your LTD claim to pursue legal action though there are exceptions to this general rule.  It is important to review the LTD insurance policy and applicable provincial limitation period to understand the time limits for your particular case.

If your LTD benefits are denied, we recommend that you seek advice from competent experienced lawyers as soon as possible following your initial denial in order to be properly advised of your rights and the options available to you to obtain a satisfactory resolution.

We are here to help navigate the LTD application process. Consult one of our experienced Disability lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for disability benefits or if your claim for benefits has been denied.

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

In Walker v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board upholding the dismissal of a longer-service and discipline-free public service employee because the Board decision-maker failed to consider whether the employee’s state of mind mitigated her alleged misconduct.

The employee’s union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, argued that “many of the actions for which [the employee] was disciplined were motivated by a desire to protect herself and other employees from threatening and possibly dangerous acts of her subordinate” whom she genuinely feared.

It is well-established, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded, that a labour adjudicator’s inquiry into the appropriate penalty for alleged misconduct “requires review of all the relevant surrounding circumstances, including mitigating factor’s such as the employee’s state of mind, which has a direct bearing on culpability.” Yet, the decision-maker in this case not only failed to address this issue but went so far as to state, on a related issue, that it was “not my role to determine whether … [the employee] had a legitimate fear for her safety.”

This judicial review decision represents one of the first times where the Federal Court of Appeal has applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. Vavilov instructed that an administrative decision-maker’s failure to address fundamental arguments raised before it may result in the decision being unreasonable due to a lack of transparency and intelligibility.

As the employee’s fear of her co-worker was central to her defence, the Court of Appeal found that it was directly relevant to the issues the decision-maker was required to determine and could have changed the outcome of the case. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Board decision-maker’s “failure to consider whether such fear constituted a mitigating factor renders it decision … unreasonable as it is impossible to discern from the decision what weight would have been attributed to this factor by the Board, had it considered it.”

The Federal Court of Appeal returned the matter to a different Board decision-maker for redetermination.

Andrew Raven and Michael Fisher appeared for the Applicant.

Our law firm pauses today to recognize the National Day of Mourning, a day to honour those who have been killed, injured, or made ill as a result of their work. Every worker has the right to a safe and healthy workplace. One workplace death, injury, or illness is one too many.

These extraordinary times remind us of the importance of a safe and healthy workplace. Sadly, many frontline workers around the world have died or become ill because of exposure to the coronavirus in their work. All of us at RavenLaw would like to express our incredible gratitude to the workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue to fight on their behalf for adequate health and safety protections.

Unions and coronavirus. Some may wonder what the connection could be between these two words.

The connection is not so strange as you might think. Unions have worked for a century or more to improve terms and conditions of employment. That has included championing sick and disability leave benefits. When quarantine was a more common practice, unions negotiated pay maintenance provisions for people who were quarantined. Unions themselves are also employers whose employees get sick from time to time. The list goes on.

At a time when the extent, seriousness and consequences of the current coronavirus outbreak are not yet fully known, it is important for unions to turn their minds to the problems potentially caused by the virus and its spread and what measures to take to make sure employees are protected.

For some time, unions have been trying to help employers understand the pitfalls of presenteeism. That’s the phenomenon where someone attends work because they can’t afford to miss a day’s pay, because they are afraid of the consequences when they take time off work during a probationary period, or they misread the employer’s signals about loyalty and dragging yourself into work when you just don’t feel up to it.

The goal for unions is to protect the employee from wage loss if they become ill or are required to care for a family worker. It is also to protect co-workers from infection. The reason employers should listen is that it is a classic case where the benefits mentioned above may also prevent significant losses to the employer’s operation.

Unions should speak with employers to deal with issues raised by COVID-19. Those discussions should be happening now.

The following is a preliminary checklist for that discussion:

• If the employer can’t be persuaded to make permanent changes to sick leave or other benefits, discuss having a temporary protocol that expires on a fixed date or event.
• One of the goals of the protocol should be to provide an incentive to employees with symptoms of influenza not to come to work.
• Discuss what medical information is required and at what stage. Who will pay for any medical certificates?
• If the collective agreement does not provide for benefits during a quarantine, then discuss what happens in the case of an employee who cannot report to work during quarantine.
• What measures are available to allow the person to work from home? What salary maintenance is available?
• What if the person is required to care for a person who is diagnosed with the virus? There are statutory rights to some days with pay in many jurisdictions, but none of them would provide enough available paid days for a virus to run its course. That is even more true if the caregiver becomes the patient at some point.
• These issues may present both health and safety issues and worker’s compensation issues in the workplace. An employer that deals inappropriately with the problem may find that there are consequences that go beyond the losses that go along with an infected workforce.
• If an employer is not responsive to any of the above, the issues may be raised in a health and safety committee.
• Does the protocol have to say that it is in addition to any provisions of the collective agreement?
• The employer should be explicit and clear about expectations for employees who have or are concerned they have symptoms of influenza. They should do so even if they believe there may be some individuals who may err on the side of staying home.
• There have been concerns about comments about people appearing to come from countries where there have been outbreaks. It is important to reinforce the importance of human rights in every workplace.

Most employers do some level of emergency preparedness planning. It just makes good sense. Planning is something you do before there is a problem.

It may be that there are no serious problems in the majority of workplaces. On the other hand, it is easy to see that, if there is a more serious problem, it will likely be too late to get appropriate measures in place.

Anyone tried to buy an N-95 mask recently?