In a recent arbitral award, Arbitrator Goodfellow confirmed that the cancellation of two full-time employee’s shifts during temporary slowdowns constituted a layoff within the meaning of the collective agreement. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union, CUPE, Local 139, that the cancellation of shifts was a layoff because it involved a reduction in a full-time employee’s hours of work below the permissible level in the collective agreement. Under this award, the parties agreed to a protocol to use in such circumstances in the future.

CUPE, Local 139 was represented by Wassim Garzouzi and Amanda Montague-Reinholdt of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP.

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.]

On November 30, 2015, in Attorney General of Canada v PSAC, 2015 FCA 273, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Government’s appeal of the decision of the Federal Court rendered last year. The case dealt with 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.

The Court of Appeal adopted the approach of the Federal Court judge, and held that an employer does not have unfettered discretion to determine whether a workplace violence complaint warrants an independent investigation: “I agree with the Respondent that allowing the employers to conduct their own investigations into complaints of work place violence and to reach their own determination as to whether such complaints deserve to be investigated by a competent person would make a mockery of the regulatory scheme and effectively nullify the employees’ right to an impartial investigation of their complaints with a view to preventing further instances of violence.”

The Court found that employers can only decline to appoint a competent person to investigate if it is plain and obvious that the complaint does not raise allegations of workplace violence on its face. The Court emphasized that the “employer has very little discretion in this respect.” This judgment affirms the right of employees to an impartial investigation when they experience psychological harassment or other forms of violence in the workplace.

The appeal was argued by Andrew Raven of RavenLaw. You can read about the Federal Court decision about the case in our blog.

On March 10, 2016, Kim Patenaude will be presenting a bilingual advanced seminar on the Duty to Accommodate at Health Canada on behalf of REACH Canada. REACH has offered lawyer referrals and public education for individuals living with disabilities since 1981.  Ravenlaw is a long-term, proud supporter of REACH and its mission to improve the quality of life for citizens with disabilities.

RavenLaw is proud to sponsor an event on the Public Service Alliance of Canada’s struggle for pay equity, co-hosted by PSAC, the Workers’ History Museum, and the University of Ottawa Human Rights Research and Education Centre. The event will take place on December 10, 2015 at the University of Ottawa Alumni Hall, beginning at 5:30 pm for the English event and 7:30 pm for the French event. The event will tell the story of the PSAC pay equity struggle, with questions and answers, as well as entertainment provided by the Just Voices Choir.

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.]

With Parliament officially re-opened following the federal election, everyone is watching to see whether the many campaign promises made by the incoming Government will be kept. One area that was the subject of more than its share of pledges was labour legislation. After nearly a decade in power, the Conservatives left behind a raft of anti-union laws that the incoming Liberals have vowed to clean up. Based on open letters and other public statements issued by the Liberals before and during the campaign, labour lawyers and workers’ advocates expect to see the following key pieces of legislation either reformed or repealed by the incoming Government:

Bill C-377

• What it does: this legislation imposed onerous financial disclosure and reporting obligations on all unions in Canada, well beyond those required of charities or non-profits.
• Campaign promise: As an MP, Justin Trudeau opposed this Bill, going so far as to write to the Senate urging it to reject it. (Notably, the Senate did successfully defeat the legislation once, requiring the Government to ignore the rules of the Senate to finally get it passed.) The Liberals have vowed to repeal this legislation.

Bill C-525

• What it does: this legislation changed the rules for certification of federal public and private sector unions, making it more difficult for workers to certify less difficult to decertify. Rather than allowing labour boards to determine that a union enjoyed the support of the bargaining unit based on membership cards, Bill C-525 required a secret ballot vote, while failing to provide the protections necessary to ensure employers could not apply improper pressure on their workers in the lead up to the vote.
• Campaign promise: Trudeau has promised that the Liberals would repeal this legislation.

Bill C-4

• What it does: Among the many laws amended by this omnibus bill, the Public Service Labour Relations Act was amended to give the Government unilateral authority over essential services: this means the government can prohibit employees from participating in a strike on the basis that they perform essential duties, a determination typically made by an independent labour board. This law closely resembled legislation that the Supreme Court of Canada had struck down earlier this year on the basis that it violated the constitutional right to strike. Bill C-4 also amended the definition of danger in the Canada Labour Code, making it more difficult for workers to refuse to perform dangerous work.
• Campaign promise: In an open letter during the campaign, Trudeau stated that Bill C-4 “stacked the deck against workers” and promised to consult with public sector partners and “revisit” this legislation.

Bill C-59

• What it does: Bill C-59 gave the Government the unilateral authority to extinguish employee sick leave banks from collective agreements and replace them with a short-term disability program. These powers allowed the Government to effectively ignore the collective bargaining process and ensure that it succeeded in securing its primary objective in this round of bargaining. The Conservative Government went as far as to preemptively “book” $900 million in savings in the 2015-2016 fiscal year on account of this change, demonstrating its contempt for the collective bargaining process.
• Campaign promise: The Liberals have publicly opposed implementing a new sick leave regime through legislation, and have expressed their commitment to bargaining with the unions in good faith.

Workers and unions will be watching to see whether the Liberal Government follows through on these campaign promises, and to see what form the more abstract commitments will take. For example, will “revisiting” Bill C-4 mean simply restoring the former essential services regime, or will the Liberals develop a new regime in consultation with workers’ representatives?

Beyond formal legislation, the Government has also promised a more positive approach to labour relations generally. This raises its own host of questions, including:

• Will the new Government depart from the Conservatives’ eagerness to interfere in labour relations through back-to-work legislation:
• Will the Liberals take steps to establish a proactive pay equity regime in line with the 2004 recommendations of the federal Pay Equity Task Force?
• Will the Government protect the right of public service employees to do their work free from political interference?

It will take years to fully assess the Government’s ability to restore trust and respect to federal labour relations. In the meantime, workers will look for early signs that the Government will follow through on the clear commitments it made in its efforts to get elected.

[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 decision rendered on January 25, 2016, adjudicator Linda Gobeil of the Public Service Labour Relations Board concluded that the Parole Board of Canada failed to accommodate a grievor suffering from “emotional stress” in a manner consistent with the requirements of Canadian Human Rights Act.

The adjudicator found that the emotional stress suffered by the employee as a result of her proximity to a particular co-worker amounted to a disability that triggered the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation. The employer was ordered to find workspace for the grievor in another building and to compensate her for lost wages and benefits during the relevant time frame.

The grievor was represented by Kim Patenaude of RavenLaw, who told the Ottawa Citizen that 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.  For more information, click here.

Our office hours during the holidays are as follows:

December 24 – closed at noon

December 25-28 – closed

December 29-30 – opened

December 31 – closed at noon

January 1 – closed 

Thank you and Happy Holidays.

March 8^th is International Women’s Day, a day that marks the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. Not just a celebration, International Women’s Day is a call to action for all the work that remains to be done. At a time when recent reports reveal that Canadian women earn only 72% of men’s wages for similar work, it is important to reflect on the labour roots of International Women’s Day and the struggles that remain for working women in Canada and around the world.

History of International Women’s Day

The origins of International Women’s Day can be traced back to the early 1900s. At that time, work was increasingly industrialized, leading to dangerous and unfair working conditions. In response, women began organizing to demand better working conditions, including shorter working hours and better pay. In 1908, 15,000 female garment workers marched through New York City to call for these improvements. This march would inspire the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union to stage a strike to protest working conditions in the city’s sweatshops. Although this initial strike was short-lived, it led to a General Strike, which lasted for three months and brought important gains for many workers.

In 1909, the Socialist Party of America, a social-democratic political party in the United States, designated February 28 as National Women’s Day in honour of the garment workers’ strike.

At the same time, European women were struggling to achieve greater fairness and protections in the workplace. In 1910, a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen, with over 100 women from 17 countries in attendance, including union leaders and the first 3 women elected to the Finnish Parliament. At this Conference, Clara Zetkin, leader of the Women’s Office of the German Social Democratic Party, tabled a proposal for an annual woman’s day – a day for women to collectively raise their demands for better working conditions, suffrage and political representation. The proposal was unanimously approved.

As a result of Zetkin’s efforts, the first International Women’s Day was observed on March 19, 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. More than one million women and men attended rallies to mark the day, raising awareness of issues of women’s rights to work, to vocational training and discrimination in the workplace, as well as the right to vote and hold political office. Sadly, only a week after the first International Women’s Day, a deadly fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City killed more than 140 working women. This tragedy brought greater attention to the issues of workplace conditions that the garment workers had protested in 1908.

International Women’s Day became increasingly prominent in Europe and became a vehicle for the peace movement during World War I. Protesting the war, Russian women observed the day for the first time in 1913. In 1914, women around Europe held solidarity rallies on March 8. In 1917, Russian women selected March 8 as a day of protest and held a strike for “Bread and Peace”. The women continued to strike for 4 days and were joined by other protests and strikes, contributing to the forced abdication of Czar Nicholas II. The Provisional Government then granted Russian women the right to vote. March 8 was later declared a national Soviet holiday by Lenin.

In 1975, International Women’s Year, the United Nations officially sanctioned International Women’s Day and began celebrating International Women’s Day on March 8 of every year. International Women’s Day is now an official holiday in many countries around the world.

International Women’s Day – Today and in the Future

Nowadays, International Women’s Day is a day for celebrating the achievements of women. The history of International Women’s Day reminds us that these achievements include the role of women in advancing the rights of workers around the world. Women have played a significant role in the labour movement, and the radical action of working women has led to important social change.

March 8^th is also a day to reflect on the work yet to be done. In the workplace alone, issues of pay inequity, the disproportionate burden of childcare, gender-based job discrimination, and sexual harassment continue to impact Canadian women. Globally, women face significant inequalities in all areas of their lives. For example, harkening back to the roots of International Women’s Day in the activism of New York’s garment workers in 1908, the day was marked in Bangladesh this year by garment workers protesting for safe working conditions, equal pay and an end to violence against women.

All workers, women and men, in Canada and abroad, should use this day to reflect on the ways in which women’s rights and workers’ rights intersect, and how both movements can work in concert to advance the cause of equality.

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