On March 8, 2018, Morgan Rowe presented as part of a panel discussion in honour of International Women’s Day, hosted by CUPE 2626. The panel discussed challenges for women and gender minorities in the workplace, including addressing issues related to precarious work, domestic workers, and unpaid labour.
On September 20, 2018, James Cameron and Morgan Rowe presented as part of the Union of Postal Communications Employees’ National Education Session. James and Morgan’s presentation addressed how to assist union members in successfully filing long-term disability applications and strategies for effective LTD benefit appeals and litigation.
On March 8, 2018, Julia Williams participated in a panel discussion at the University of Ottawa on “Challenges and Opportunities: Racialized Women Working in the Law.” The panel provided an opportunity to examine the challenges faced by women of diverse backgrounds and share insights into overcoming these challenges. Julia would like to thank the “Law Needs Feminism Because” group for inviting her to participate in this important social justice event.
The full list of student groups that collaborated to bring the panel together include:
On October 9, 2018, James Cameron will present as part of a panel discussing terminations in the federal public service. The panel will tackle how employees are terminated in the public service and when those terminations can be successfully challenged.
For more information or to register, please contact the event organizer.
We are thrilled to announce that Jessica Greenwood is joining Ravenlaw!
Jessica has been successfully advocating on behalf of unions and employees her entire career. She is a proud Kingstonian and Queen’s alumni. Before joining our firm, Jessica worked at one of the largest trade unions in the country where she regularly appeared before labour arbitration boards. She brings talent, results and experience.
Jessica will be leading our Kingston office where she will continue advocating on behalf of workers and unions.
In addition, Peggy Smith, who has been working in association with our firm since January 1, 2018, will continue to service Kingston area clients.
Welcome Jessica!
On October 18, 2017, James Cameron will present at the Canadian Institute’s Disability Insurance Conference. James will be discussing litigation strategies in LTD benefit claims, specifically addressing strategies for streamlining the litigation process and how to present your case to achieve best outcomes in a timely and cost-effective manner.
For more information or to register for the conference, please visit the Canadian Institute’s conference website.
Please note our office will be closed from December 23, 2017 until January 1, 2018. We will reopen for regular business hours on Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:30 am.
Warmest wishes for a happy holiday season and a wonderful new year.
We are delighted to announce the opening of our Kingston office, enabling us to better serve our existing and future labour and employment clients.
Kingston will now have access to an exclusively employee side law firm, with substantial experience in all aspects of labour, employment, long term disability and human rights.
For further information on how to reach the Kingston office, click here.
RavenLaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Marlee Olson
Even before Canada became a nation 150 years ago, workers in Canada were fighting for their rights. Although labour rights activists have had a lot to celebrate over the years, it has been a long and arduous journey. In honour of Labour Day as well as Canada’s 150th birthday this year, here are some of the highlights of the Canadian labour movement.
In the late 1700s, workers in Canada began congregating to demand fair wages in exchange for their labour. The government responded by putting laws into place making it a criminal offence to participate in trade unions. As a result, unions had no way to enforce contracts with employers to receive what they had been promised. The birth of the nation in 1867 was followed shortly after by the birth of the Canadian Labour Union, a political organization of unions that fought against the criminal sanctions imposed on trade unions. Despite this step forward, unions and employees still had no way to legally oppose employers, who would administer harsh discipline and demand 60-hour work weeks.
Several new laws in the early 1900s helped to ease the path to unionization in Canada, with union membership increasing at the start of WWI. After the war, the labour movement experienced several setbacks, including the violent crackdown on the famous Winnipeg General Strike. Although union membership decreased throughout the Great Depression, the period leading up to WWII saw unionism increase once again. The 1937 strike at General Motors in Oshawa is considered by many to be the birth of industrial unionism in Canada. After this, there was more pressure on the government to give legal protection to union members, but there were still no legal repercussions for employers who refused to cooperate.
Union membership doubled during WWII thanks to increased reliance on the work force. In 1944, the federal government implemented a wartime national labour relations law called PC 1003. This law finally placed obligations on both the employer and the union, and put into place many of the tenets of labour law that we still see today. Although repealed shortly after the end of the war, most provinces passed laws resembling PC 1003, including features like union recognition, the duty to bargain in good faith, and strict regulation of strikes. These rights were later extended to federal public service employees following the 1965 strike of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Although PC 1003 was the first legislation to provide unions and workers with clear legal protection, it has certainly not been the only law to do so. Occupational health and safety legislation started coming to effect across the country in the 1970s. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, has entrenched the constitutional freedom of association. This right was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007 to include the right of employees to associate to achieve workplace goals without employer interference. The Supreme Court further held in 2015 that the constitutional right to freedom of association also includes the right to strike.
The labour movement in Canada has seen many victories throughout the past two centuries—workers have gone from risking arrest simply for participating in a union to having a constitutionally recognized right to strike. Although labour activists have made great strides, there are still many more hurdles in the path. As we look back on the accomplishments throughout the years, we must also look forward to the challenges yet to come, as we continue to work towards fair and equitable working conditions for all.
[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, a Board of Inquiry under Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Code found that an employer had violated its duty to accommodate a prospective employee on the basis of disability. This decision provides important confirmation that, like existing employees, prospective new hires also have a right to be free from discrimination, and to be accommodated up to the point of undue hardship.
The Nova Scotia Health Authority offered a job to Melanie Yuille, a registered nurse and single mother. The offer was conditional on her being cleared fit for work. When the employer found out that she had epilepsy, a condition that prevented her from working the night shift on a rotating basis, it rescinded the offer.
A Board of Inquiry under Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Code found that, in rescinding the offer, the employer violated its duty to accommodate Ms. Yuille’s disability. The decision affirmed that employers have a duty to accommodate prospective employees who can perform the essential duties of the job. An employer cannot pass over an applicant with a disability simply because she cannot meet some of the job requirements. The employer must establish that, if the applicant can perform the core function of the job, accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.
The employer took the position that working the night shifts was a bona fide occupational requirement. The employer claimed that if it hired Ms. Yuille for day and evening shifts only, other staff may have to work more nights and, in that case, it may incur extra overtime costs. It further claimed that hiring Ms. Yuille could affect staff morale and raised patient safety issues.
In rejecting those arguments, the Board of Inquiry found that the employer’s concerns with employee morale and patient safety were speculative and impressionistic. There was no actual evidence to support either claim. There was similarly no evidence that the cost of accommodating Ms. Yuille would have been unduly burdensome for this large employer. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the employer consulted the union about accommodating the applicant and, in any event, there was nothing in the collective agreement that presented a barrier to accommodating the applicant.
Ms. Yuille was awarded general damages of $15,000, compensation for financial losses incurred, and the opportunity to accept the next available nursing position with the employer.
This is one of the few cases to address the duty to accommodate prospective employees. As the Board of Inquiry recognized, it is difficult for claimants like Ms. Yuille, a self-represented litigant, to enforce her human rights. Claimants in her situation are usually unable to afford legal counsel. The employer had experienced counsel to represent its interests and, while the provincial human rights commission was a party to the case, it did not act as the complainant’s advocate.
Ms. Yuille did, however, have one significant advantage over many other claimants, if not the vast majority, in her situation: the employer was transparent about its reasons for refusing to give her the job. There is rarely such direct evidence of discrimination in the hiring process — or, for that matter, in any discrimination complaint. Claimants must rely upon circumstantial evidence to prove their case, a daunting proposition for unrepresented litigants without knowledge of human rights jurisprudence or the law of evidence.
This case is a positive reminder that, despite those systemic barriers, in order to be effective, human rights legislation must protect persons with a disability from discrimination in employment, whether they are already in the workplace or are seeking to join it.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]