As many of our friends and colleagues in the labour community may already know, David Yazbeck has left private practice at RavenLaw to work within the labour movement as the Director, National Labour Relations, at PIPSC. David has a long history representing PIPSC and its members, championing human rights and whistleblower protections in numerous precedent-setting cases on the union’s behalf. This is an exciting opportunity for David to continue to pursue his life-long commitment to workers’ rights, on behalf of an important voice for labour in this country.

David leaves private practice with a legacy of historic victories at all levels of court, and a demonstrated commitment to advancing social justice issues through important pro bono work. He has litigated important cases involving racism and anti-Black racism, and his commitment to the arts, and artists, led to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling ensuring artists could meaningfully participate in collective bargaining. We will miss David’s many contributions to RavenLaw, including his vast experience litigating complex issues on behalf of workers, most notably in the areas of human rights and pay equity. It goes without saying, however, that we will miss having him as a colleague even more.

While it is difficult to lose a founding member who has done so much for the firm, we know David will continue to play an important role in the labour movement, using his energy and talents to advance the interests of workers across Canada. We wish David all the best in this next step in his career and look forward to continuing to work alongside him in the future.

On February 9, 2022, Morgan Rowe presented as part of a panel on “Queerness and the Legal Workplace”, hosted by OUTLaw and the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. Morgan and the panel discussed common issues that LGBTQ+ lawyers and law students encounter in the legal profession and how to navigate those issues.

On October 22, 2021, the Federal Court dismissed an application by the Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area (TRTL), which sought to challenge the Federal Government’s decision to deny it funding for the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program because its president refused to sign an attestation that the job and the organization’s mandate respected human rights, including reproductive rights. Continue reading →

Wassim Garzouzi recently published a chapter in the edited collection, Collective Bargaining in Higher Education. Wassim’s chapter addresses the myth of academic exceptionalism in organizing and collective bargaining within academia, examined through the lens of a successful organizing drive and first contract achieved by the part-time law professors at the University of Ottawa.

The chapter is available here. The interest arbitration decision referred to in the chapter can be found here.

The Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) was successful in two grievances challenging ORNGE’s Drug and Alcohol Policy. Specifically, the OPEIU challenged the ORNGE’s “zero-tolerance” approach to medical cannabis, and its practice to treat prescribed medicinal cannabis differently from other types of medication.

Arbitrator Gail Misra declared ORNGE’s policy to be discriminatory and unreasonable. She concluded that “having a blanket edict that if an employee can only use medical cannabis to treat their illness, they cannot do a safety sensitive job, is draconian and inflexible, and is not supported by the [Canadian Human Rights Act] or the jurisprudence.”

As a result, Arbitrator Misra declared the policy to be “unreasonable to the extent that it fails to treat prescribed medicinal cannabis as a “medication”.  Furthermore, “having found that Ornge’s inflexible position regarding cannabis use in a safety sensitive position is unreasonable, I also find that the Policy was drafted in a discriminatory manner in that it does not properly provide for accommodation to the point of undue hardship for those working in a safety sensitive position, who, due to their medical condition, are prescribed cannabis for medical treatment purposes.”

The OPEIU was represented by Wassim Garzouzi, Julia Williams and Patt Gibbs.

The decision can be accessed here.

By Dayna Steinfeld

In Manitoba, The Employment Standards Code (“ESC”) establishes basic and minimum rights and standards for provincial employees. Where the ESC applies to a worker’s job, these rights and standards are mandatory. This kind of legislation is not unique to Manitoba. Employment standards statutes are found in every province and in the federal jurisdiction, and there are many general similarities between the Manitoba ESC and legislation in other provinces. However, each piece of legislation is distinct and there are differences in the specific rights and entitlements established through the legislation in each province. It is important for workers in Manitoba to know their rights under the ESC to help avoid being taken advantage of in their jobs. Below are some key areas where questions commonly arise for employees in Manitoba.

Can my employer make deductions from my wages?

Many workers have been faced with the situation of having the cost of a uniform or tools deducted from their pay. But is this permitted under the ESC?  

In  Manitoba, employers are generally prohibited from making deductions from employee wages, unless the deductions are required by federal or provincial law (such as EI or CPP contributions) or permitted by a court order. Employers are specifically prohibited from making deductions for uniforms and for any amount to cover any cost arising from faulty work of the employee or damage caused by the employee, or to cover a cash shortage such as in a “dine and dash” situation. 

There are certain circumstances where other deductions from pay are permitted:

• With the employee’s consent, the employer may deduct an amount for something that is provided as a direct benefit to the employee which the employee was not required to obtain from the employer.
• An amount for business supplies or tools may be deducted, but only if several requirements are met: the employee was not required to purchase the supplies or tools from the employer; the employee is able to keep the supplies or tools when they are no longer working for the employer; and the employer is not required by law to provide the supplies or tools to the employee.
• With the employee’s consent, the amount of a payroll error that benefited the employee or a cash advance paid to an employee may be deducted from wages (but the deduction cannot include any amount for interest, service charge, or fee).
• With the employee’s written authorization, the minimum amount payable by the employer for an offence committed by the employee that is being prosecuted against the employer for a photo radar or red light camera ticket may be deducted from wages.

When am I entitled to a leave of absence?

The ESC provides for a variety of leaves of absences that are available to employees should different circumstances arise in their lives. These are unpaid leaves of absence. The purpose of including the leaves in the ESC is to protect the rights of workers to take necessary time away from work while ensuring they will have a job to return to after their absence from the workplace. 

The leaves of absence in the ESC include bereavement, compassionate care, family responsibility (including the health of the employee), interpersonal violence, critical illness, serious injury or illness, maternity and parental leaves. The lengths of time available as protected leaves vary depending on the type of leave being taken. 

In Manitoba, there is also a new public health emergency leave. This is a temporary measure in the ESC that provides employees with job-protected leave related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is available where an employee is unable to work due to circumstances related to the pandemic, such as a public health requirement to quarantine or providing care to a family member due to school or daycare closures, and is available for the length of time the circumstance persists. 

Significantly, the ESC prohibits employers from requiring a doctor’s note to support an employee’s eligibility for public health emergency leave or other protected leaves available under the ESC. This means that employees taking family responsibility leave for their own health cannot be mandated by their employer to provide a doctor’s note. 

Am I entitled to severance pay?

The term “severance” is often used in the context of an employee losing their job. You may have also heard about employers being obligated to pay “severance” under employment standards legislation. However, this term has no meaning under the ESC. Unlike other employment standards legislation, such as in Ontario, there is no obligation on Manitoba employers to provide severance pay on termination of employment. The requirement in the ESC is to provide notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice, in accordance with the minimum amount of notice set out in the ESC. 

Employers or lawyers in Manitoba may still refer to offering or negotiating a “severance” package. That typically refers to a package or pay-out offered by an employer at the time of termination to satisfy its obligation, under the common law, to provide reasonable notice of termination. (For more information on the meaning of common law reasonable notice, see: “What is reasonable notice?”). Common law reasonable notice is an amount beyond the minimum required under the ESC that is intended to help bridge an employee from their old job to a new position. The question of whether you may be entitled to common law reasonable notice depends on the terms of your employment contract. However, the rights provided on termination under the ESC do not include a separate right to severance pay.

Conclusion 

The ESC establishes important rights for workers. It is Manitoba-specific legislation that contains unique standards, limits, and entitlements. Employees should be aware of the specifics of the rights and responsibilities in the ESC. A Manitoba employment lawyer can help address questions or concerns workers may have about whether the requirements of the ESC are being met by their employer. 

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