Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act reintroduced

In March, Ceaser Work Counsel reported on the second reading of the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2013.  The legislation died on the order paper when the provincial election was called, but on July 16, 2014, the Liberal government reintroduced the bill (former Bill 146).  Here's a summary of the key amendments that (current) Bill 18 would make:

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 (Bill 18)

The Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 (Bill 18) would make substantial changes to a number of employment-related statutes.

·         The Act extends protection to live-in caregivers under the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act.

 

·         It extends the definition of “worker” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”) to include those who perform work for no pay, such as ‘unpaid interns’.  All of the protections afforded by the OHSA, including the right to refuse unsafe work, now apply to unpaid workers.

·         The Act reduces the “open period” under the Labour Relations Act, permitting decertification applications or union “raids” to occur within only the final two (2) months of construction industry collective agreements (instead of the current 3- month window). 

·         The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the “WSIA”) would be amended to attribute the costs of workplace injuries to temporary agency workers to the “client” employer, rather than the agency.  Lost wages for temporary agency workers would be assessed on the basis of their income earned from the agency.

Most significant, however, are the changes the legislation would make to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”). 

First, it would extend the time limit for recovery of unpaid wages to two (2) years, instead of the current 6-month limit.  The cap on recovery of wages of $10,000 would be eliminated, meaning that employers could be liable to the full amount of unpaid wages over a 2-year period.

Second, the amendments would create new responsibilities for temporary help agencies and the employers who utilize their services.  Agencies will now be responsible for tracking and maintaining records of all hours worked by agency workers for a period of three (3) years.  More importantly, the revisions to the ESA introduce “joint and several liability” for both the agency and the client employer with respect to the payment of wages.  This means that if the agency does not satisfy a claim for wages filed by a temporary worker, the client employer may be held responsible for any shortfall.

Third, the ESA is amended to create informational obligations for employers and the concept of the “self-audit”.  Employers would be required to provide all employees with a poster prepared by the Ministry of Labour setting out employee entitlements under the Act.  Employment Standards Officers (“ESOs”) are also now empowered to order an employer to conduct a self-audit of its records in order to determine whether it is compliant with the Act, and to provide the ESO with a report of its findings.  In its self-audit report, the employer must explain how it has determined that it is in compliance.

It should be observed that the amendments appear to focus on two vulnerable groups of workers:  temporary agency workers (so-called “temps”) and unpaid interns.  With respect to the former group, employers who rely on contingent labour will want to carefully review their contracts with the help agencies to ensure that the obligation to pay wages or other costs of the placement remain the responsibility of the agency.  Provisions that address responsibility for taxes and other statutory amounts will need to be reviewed and revised to ensure that the agency can be charged back for any amounts found due and owing by regulatory bodies, including any WSIB claims costs that are attributed to the “client” employer under the amendments to the WSIA.

By adding unpaid workers to the definition of “worker” in the OHSA, it appears that the Government is responding (at least in part) to claims that unpaid interns are becoming much more common and are prone to exploitation.  It may also be that the new “self-audit” mechanism in the ESA is intended to provide another enforcement tool to address those employers who inappropriately utilize unpaid interns, although the Government has not expressly called out this intention.

Do you have questions about Ontario's labour and employment statutes?  Have concerns about compliance?  Contact Lance Ceaser for assistance.

 

A Tale of Two Cities (in Alberta): The Good and Bad of Managing Human Rights in the Workplace

Two recent decisions from the Wild Rose province demonstrate the dangers an employer can face when confronted with human rights issues in the workplace, and how to appropriately address an employee’s request for medical accommodation.

In Robinson v. City of Edmonton, the complainant was a bus driver for the City who suffered from environmental ulticaria, a type of chemical sensitivity to things like diesel fumes and perfume.  For the first 8 - 9 years of her employment as a transit operator, the complainant was able to control her symptoms with over-the-counter medications, but her condition progressively worsened and she was prescribed a medication that had the side-effect of making her drowsy.  That being said, up until 2009, the City had consistently accommodated the complainant by allowing her periods of medical leave and by allowing her to trade or “sell” her shifts to other transit employees (including her husband, who was also a transit worker).  However, starting in August 2009, the complainant was off work on STD due to her medical condition.  She applied for LTD in the fall of 2009.

The complainant’s supervisor asked her to provide her LTD application and a resume in mid-October.  The City was contemplating whether there might be a different transit operator position – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) operator role – that would accommodate the complainant’s condition.  LRT operators drive from a self-contained booth, and are therefore separated from many of the irritants that would trigger the complainant’s sensitivities.  It was decided to offer this option to the complainant.  Based on this form of accommodation being made available (and confirmation from the complainant’s doctor that she was cleared to attempt a trial as an LRT operator), the LTD carrier found that she was not “totally disabled” from her own occupation, and denied her claim for benefits.

There was some dispute in the evidence about whether the complainant understood that she was being offered the LRT role as an accommodation for her return to work, but the Tribunal concluded that she was in fact aware that this alternative was being proposed.  Instead of accepting the LRT trial, however, the complainant tendered her resignation in December, stating that she did not believe she was cleared to return to work without restrictions as she still could not safely drive (while medicated) and no other options were open to her. 

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the City had not discriminated against or failed to accommodate the complainant.  The complainant should have understood that she was being cleared to return to a ‘transit operator’ role in LRT and that the City was prepared to accommodate her in this position (at least on a trial basis).  Her doctor was on side with this option (as it would likely reduce her symptoms and lead to reduced medication usage) and there were no collective agreement impediments to this approach (i.e., she had sufficient seniority to sign up for LRT shifts, once she received required training).  The Tribunal held that “Accommodation is a two way street” and that the complainant had effectively ended the accommodation process by insisting that she could not drive safely and by resigning her job.  In the circumstances, the duty to accommodate did not require the City to decline the complainant’s resignation or offer her the job back.

On January 15, 2014, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision of the Tribunal, concluding that its decision was not only reasonable, but that it was “correct”.

The result in City of Calgary v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38, on the other hand, was not so favorable to the employer.  In that case, before Arbitrator Phyllis Smith, the issue was whether the employer had violated its obligations under the collective agreement in dealing with the sexual harassment complaint of the grievor, MP.  MP had been sexually assaulted by a foreman who worked for the City on a number of occasions in the fall of 2010.  Some incidents were caught on a spy camera that the grievor and her husband installed in the workplace after her initial complaints were not addressed effectively by her supervisor.  The foreman was ultimately suspended by the employer and an investigation was undertaken.  The grievor also brought criminal charges against the foreman.

Shortly after the foreman was suspended, the grievor came in to work to find what she thought was rat poison on her keyboard.  The incident was reviewed by management, but the investigation was never completed as the grievor was moved to another City facility temporarily.  When the grievor questioned what was being done about the incident, she was rebuked by her manager and warned about compliance with the Respectful Workplace Policy.  The grievor later alleged that her manager was following her home (which was found to be untrue), and so the employer determined that the grievor should attend a mandatory IME to clear her to return to work after a week of vacation.  The grievor did not attend the IME session, upon learning that the doctor was a psychiatrist whose report would be provided to the employer.  The grievor did, however, provide a note indicating that she was fit to be at work and returned to her original office location.  Upon her return, she was counselled on respectful interactions with co-workers and asked to return certain office keys that she’d had in her possession for a long time.

A grievance was filed on her behalf and she also made a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (which was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration).  The foreman was permitted to take retirement, and the employer took the position in the grievance process that it had acted appropriately. 
In her decision, the Arbitrator concluded that “there was a total failure on the part of those responsible to meet the obligations under the Collective Agreement, human rights legislation, occupational health and safety legislation and the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy”.  The City was not only vicariously liable for the sexual assaults on the grievor, but for a number of serious missteps that followed:

·         Not starting an investigation when the issue was first raised by the grievor to her immediate supervisor, leaving the abuser in charge of the workplace where the grievor worked;

·         The grievor’s manager claiming that he viewed the evidence from the spy camera as “inconclusive” and not removing the grievor from the workplace or taking any steps to prevent reprisals;

·         Moving the grievor back into the workplace before the “rat poison” investigation was completed contrary to her concerns for her safety, and counselling her on being disrespectful;

·         Sending her for a psychiatric IME when she stated an intention to speak to the mayor about the situation, and insisting that she have a fitness certificate before she could return to work from a previously scheduled vacation;

·         Only removing the grievor from the workplace after her union intervened, and then only transferring her to a temporary ad hoc location, causing additional stress; and

·         Maintaining that the grievance had no merit throughout the grievance procedure.

After reviewing the evidence, the Arbitrator awarded the grievor lost wages (past and future), general damages, damages for pension loss, and special damages, totalling approximately $850,000 (less a discount for various contingencies).  The Arbitrator described the situation as a “tragic case” in which a “vulnerable victim” had her situation worsened by “insensitive management”, greatly exacerbating the effects of the sexual assaults.

If any lesson is to be learned from these two cases, it’s that careful, proactive steps can greatly mitigate an employer’s risks, particularly when addressing sensitive issues like human rights.  Failure to act with urgency and care comes with very high and unnecessary costs.

If you have a question about this post or have a human rights issue you’d like to discuss, please don’t hesitate to contact Lance Ceaser.

 

Regulatory Round-Up #1: An overview of changes to Ontario’s Legislation and Regulations that employers need to be aware of

Ceaser Work Counsel strives to keep employers and HR professionals up-to-date on the ever-changing law of the workplace.  Here are three recent or upcoming changes to the legislative landscape that you need to be aware of.

* * *

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2013 (Bill 146)

Currently in second reading debate, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2013 (Bill 146), would make substantial changes to a number of employment-related statutes.

·         The Act extends protection to live-in caregivers under the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act.

·         It extends the definition of “worker” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”) to include those who perform work for no pay, such as ‘unpaid interns’.  All of the protections afforded by the OHSA, including the right to refuse unsafe work, now apply to unpaid workers.

·         The Act reduces the “open period” under the Labour Relations Act, permitting decertification applications or union “raids” to occur within only the final two (2) months of construction industry collective agreements (instead of the current 3- month window).

·         The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the “WSIA”) would be amended to attribute the costs of workplace injuries to temporary agency workers to the “client” employer, rather than the agency.  Lost wages for temporary agency workers would be assessed on the basis of their income earned from the agency.

Most significant, however, are the changes the legislation would make to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”). 

First, it would extend the time limit for recovery of unpaid wages to two (2) years, instead of the current 6-month limit.  The cap on recovery of wages of $10,000 would be eliminated, meaning that employers could be liable to the full amount of unpaid wages over a 2-year period.

Second, the amendments would create new responsibilities for temporary help agencies and the employers who utilize their services.  Agencies will now be responsible for tracking and maintaining records of all hours worked by agency workers for a period of three (3) years.  More importantly, the revisions to the ESA introduce “joint and several liability” for both the agency and the client employer with respect to the payment of wages.  This means that if the agency does not satisfy a claim for wages filed by a temporary worker, the client employer may be held responsible for any shortfall.

Third, the ESA is amended to create informational obligations for employers and the concept of the “self-audit”.  Employers would be required to provide all employees with a poster prepared by the Ministry of Labour setting out employee entitlements under the Act.  Employment Standards Officers (“ESOs”) are also now empowered to order an employer to conduct a self-audit of its records in order to determine whether it is compliant with the Act, and to provide the ESO with a report of its findings.  In its self-audit report, the employer must explain how it has determined that it is in compliance.

It should be observed that the amendments appear to focus on two vulnerable groups of workers:  temporary agency workers (so-called “temps”) and unpaid interns.  With respect to the former group, employers who rely on contingent labour will want to carefully review their contracts with the help agencies to ensure that the obligation to pay wages or other costs of the placement remain the responsibility of the agency.  Provisions that address responsibility for taxes and other statutory amounts will need to be reviewed and revised to ensure that the agency can be charged back for any amounts found due and owing by regulatory bodies, including any WSIB claims costs that are attributed to the “client” employer under the amendments to the WSIA.

By adding unpaid workers to the definition of “worker” in the OHSA, it appears that the Government is responding (at least in part) to claims that unpaid interns are becoming much more common and are prone to exploitation.  It may also be that the new “self-audit” mechanism in the ESA is intended to provide another enforcement tool to address those employers who inappropriately utilize unpaid interns, although the Government has not expressly called out this intention.  (Note:  In a future post, I’ll discuss the contentious issue of unpaid workers, such as students and interns.)

Regulation 297/13 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Not unlike the new informational obligations in the ESA created by the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, a new regulation introduced by the Ministry of Labour looks to enhance workplace parties’ understanding of their responsibilities under the OHSA. 

Regulation 297/13 (Occupational Health and Safety Awareness Training) introduces new training requirements for workers and supervisors:

·         Employers are to ensure that all workers and supervisors receive “basic occupational health and safety awareness training” in the following areas:

o   The duties and rights of workers under the OHSA;

o   The duties of employers and supervisors under the OHSA;

o   The roles of health and safety representatives and joint health and safety committees under the Act;

o   The roles of the Ministry of Labour, the WSIB and designated health and safety entities under the Act;

o   Common workplace hazards;

o   The Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) with respect to controlled products; and

o   Occupational illness, including latency.

·         Employers are to ensure that supervisors complete this basic training within one week of performing supervisory duties (unless the supervisor provides proof to the employer of having previously completed a materially similar training program).

·         The basic occupational health and safety awareness training program for supervisors should also cover how to recognize, assess and control workplace hazards, and to evaluate those controls, and sources of information on occupational health and safety.

·         The employer must maintain records of the training that it has provided, including records of any individuals who were exempt under the Regulation.  The employer must also provide workers and supervisors with written proof of their completion of the basic training program.

·         In workplaces requiring a joint health and safety committee, the employer must ensure that committee members receive the necessary training to become a “certified member”.

Employers will have until July 1, 2014 to become compliant with the new Regulation.

The Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2013 (Bill 32)

While not entirely new (Bill 32 was simply the reintroduction of Bill 28 that was originally introduced in the Legislature in 2010), the recently passed Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2013 (the “RHRPA”) does bring heightened regulation and oversight to the practice of human resources.  In a nutshell, the biggest changes are as follows:

·         Enhanced structure and authority for the Association to establish qualifications for membership by human resources professionals and students and to conduct practice inspections;

·         Prohibition against using specific HR designations by non-members or those not authorized to do so, and a complaints procedure which includes fines of up to $25,000 for those found to have contravened the Act;

·         The establishment of oversight committees for complaints, discipline, reviews, capacity and appeals;

·         Creation of a capacity review procedure to determine whether a member may be incapacitated from his or her HR practice; and

·         Establishment of inspection and investigation procedures, with broad powers granted to inspectors and investigators under the Act.

All HR professionals, and particularly members of the HRPAO will want to familiarize themselves with the Act to ensure that their HR practice is compliant.

* * *

If you have any questions about these legislative changes or about Ontario's employment laws generally, please don't hesitate to contact Lance Ceaser at (519) 200-1611 or by email.