On May 2, 2013, James Cameron and Andrew Astritis each presented at the 2013 Accommodation Law Conference in Ottawa, sponsored by Labour Law Online.ca, the Centre for Labour-Management Development.  Their presentations addressed Workplace Policies and the Duty to Accommodate, Discipline, Discharge and the Disabled Employee, Accommodating Family Status, Disabilities requiring special Accommodation, as well as a host of other issues:
http://labourlawonline.ca/main.jsp?p=seminar_desc&seminarid=185&bndid=3&st=3

On August 30, 2013, the Federal Court of Canada quashed an Order made by the Minister of Heritage, James Moore, and cancelled a forced vote on the Canada Border Services Agency’s (“CBSA”) employees in the Frontière/Border (“FB”) group.

The Minister’s Order was made following a request by Treasury Board President Tony Clement for a forced vote on the employer’s final offer, dated May 6, 2013. Minister Moore ordered the vote without consulting or giving notice to the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”), the certified bargaining agent representing the 7 000 plus employees affected.

PSAC successfully judicially reviewed the decision before the Federal Court of Canada. In her decision, Justice Mary Gleason emphasized the importance of the vote on PSAC’s interests. Justice Gleason found that “it would be difficult to find a decision that might more deeply affect a trade union’s interests than the decision to order a vote among bargaining unit members” and concluded that PSAC was entitled to adequate notice of the employer’s request for a forced vote and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it.

Justice Gleason noted each side’s duty to engage in good faith collective bargaining and set aside the Minister’s order, without remitting the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration: “the decision of the Minister to order a vote among the employees in the FB bargaining unit on the Employer’s final offer will be set aside. And, since the decision directing the vote is being quashed, the activities currently being undertaken by the PSLRB to conduct that vote must cease as there is no longer any decision to authorize them.”

PSAC was represented by Andrew Raven and Wassim Garzouzi of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l.

Read the PSAC’s press release.

As part of the new and exciting changes to our website, we are pleased to announce the introduction of the Resources section, which will include informative articles on topics in our areas of expertise, and Writing for Working People, our new blog. We hope that these new resources will provide our clients and the community with relevant and useful information about workers’ rights in all areas of labour, employment and human rights law. 

The first group of articles is on the topic of Disability Benefits. Several of our lawyers have recently given informational sessions on long-term disability benefits and other related issues, including at the Maplesoft Centre and the Ottawa Fibromyalgia Support Group. We have now posted a group of articles, providing general information on these topics. Similar articles on other legal topics will be soon to follow. 

We have also introduced a new blog, Writing for Working People. On this blog, we will be providing regular updates and commentary on issues that impact workers’ rights, including: recent court decisions, changes to labour and employment-related legislation, and other legal and political topics affecting unions and workers across the country. 

Please check back regularly as we continue to update these new resources!

Employment legislation has a huge impact on workers’ rights. However, employment lawyers know all too well that well-meaning legislation often fails to translate into better conditions for workers, because some workers are excluded from its protection, or it is difficult to enforce.

Tomorrow, the Ontario government is set to pass Bill 18, a sweeping bill intended to strengthen existing labour and employment laws. While many of the proposed changes are to be welcomed, the proposals fail to address the problems with enforcing employees’ existing rights.

Ontario’s Bill 18: Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act

Bill 18, which passed Second Reading in the Ontario legislature on October 29, is what is known as an ‘omnibus’ bill: it includes amendments to several existing statutes affecting labour, employment, workers’ compensation and health and safety. Some of the highlights include:

• Enhancing the protections for temporary foreign workers in Ontario;
• Requiring employers to provide employees with information regarding their rights under the Employment Standards Act;
• Removing the $10,000 cap on recovery for unpaid wages through a Ministry of Labour order to pay, and extending the time limit to recover wages;
• Amending the definition of “worker” in the Occupational Health and Safety Act to extend coverage to co-op students, trainees and other unpaid workers;
• Indexing minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

Motion for time allocation passed, limiting debate

The Liberals brought a motion on Monday, October 27 for “time allocation”, limiting debate of Bill 18 and expediting its passage. The government justified this move as following through on the strong mandate the Liberals received in the last provincial election to end the delays in passing important legislation.

Opposition members questioned this rationale for limiting debate, and emphasized that Bill 18 is incredibly important to workers across Ontario, meaning all affected parties, including precarious workers and interest groups, should have an opportunity to be heard. Peggy Sattler, an NDP MPP who has tabled her own private member’s bill seeking to improve rights for unpaid interns, pointed out that a curtailed debate will prevent discussion of the shortcomings of Bill 18, including the fact that enforcement of employment rights remains difficult for vulnerable employees, such as unpaid interns and migrant workers, because it is dependent on employee complaints.

Important rights may go unrealized

On the whole, Bill 18 is to be lauded for extending certain protections to various groups of vulnerable workers, who are currently excluded from employment regulations. These changes are encouraging as they appear to reflect a genuine desire to increase workers’ access to rights such as redress for unpaid wages, workers’ compensation, and health and safety. However, without a robust method of enforcing these rights, they may go unrealized for many workers.

Existing enforcement mechanisms based on employee complaints are problematic, because they depend on workers, who are often in a vulnerable position, knowing their rights and coming forward. Many workers may be unwilling to bring a complaint for fear of negative consequences in their employment. Our firm’s social justice intern last year, Daniel Tucker-Simmons, wrote a comprehensive report  on the problems with the current enforcement model for the Broadbent Institute.

As discussed in that report, an important step to improve the enforcement of employment standards legislation would be to repeal provisions enacted by the 2010 Open for Business Act that require employees to raise an alleged violation of the Employment Standards Act with their employer before being allowed to file a complaint with the Ministry of Labour. That amendment was widely criticized at the time, as most workers would be unwilling to directly confront their employers about violations of their rights. Repealing this requirement would improve the chances that the proposed new rights will be adequately enforced. Unfortunately, the limited debate of Bill 18 will prevent these and other issues from being the subject of appropriate discussion and review.

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

Ravenlaw is delighted to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that pensioners at Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) are entitled to compensation for the $43 million of surplus pension contributions made to MTS prior to its privatization.  This ruling, worth well over $100 million with interest, ends a long legal battle for these workers and their unions.

Congratulations to Brian Meronek, Kris Saxberg and Tomas Masi of D’Arcy & Deacon. James Cameron and Andrew Astritis appeared as co-counsel in the appeal.

Full text of the decision can be found here.

On March 21, 2013, James Cameron participated on a panel on persons with high-conflict personalities and how to deal with them in the workplace.

People who have a pattern of creating or increasing conflict with others can be characterized as people with ‘high-conflict personalities.’ With these individuals, the issue in dispute doesn’t cause the tension; rather, the individual’s personality causes the tension. People with high conflict personalities may have underlying personality disorders, or traits of a personality disorder. In this session experts will identify high conflict patterns of behaviour, provide information on common personality disorders, and discuss legal considerations and dispute resolution techniques relevant to dealing with conflict in the workplace.

For further information, please visit the Lancaster House website.