If you sustained a workplace injury and are in receipt of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits for the first time, there are essential pieces of information that you should be familiar with.
Workplaces are forever changing. That’s why Ontario is currently undergoing the Changing Workplaces Review, with the aim of amending, if necessary, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to account for these changing times. According to the ‘Terms of Reference’ posted on the Ministry of Labour’s website, ‘[t]he objective of this review is to improve security and opportunity for those made vulnerable by the structural economic pressures and changes being experienced by Ontarians in 2015.’
An employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (‘CP’) was terminated for cause in March 2015 for charging personal expenses to his corporate credit card and failing to repay them within a reasonable timeframe. On May 20, 2016 an arbitrator appointed under Part III of the Canada Labour Code agreed with CP that a dismissal was justified in the circumstances. The result in Mark Reynolds v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not surprising. Nonetheless, the arbitrator’s analysis and reasoning are interesting.
A recent article published by Citizens’ Press in their What’s Left weekly digest highlights how it can be problematic to categorize people into generational categories.
In Canada, drug and alcohol testing in the workplace has long been treated as a significant invasion of employee privacy – which is not surprising when you consider the elements of bodily intrusion and public embarrassment associated with it. In keeping with this longstanding tradition, the arbitrator in United Mine Workers of America, Local 1656 v. Tech Coal Limited struck down a mining company’s random drug and alcohol testing program.
Bahniuk v. Canada [Attorney General] is a recent labour case from the Federal Court of Appeal that raises important questions about a grievor’s duty to mitigate between termination and reinstatement.
Many unions are incorporated under federal or provincial not-for-profit corporate legislation. That legislation contains rules that unions need to navigate, particularly when dealing with a board member who has behaved inappropriately. The British Columbia Supreme Court recently dealt with some of these issues in George v. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, which sheds light on the rights of a board of directors to deal with a director who has acted inappropriately in the course of his or her duties.
Recent events have marked the importance of ensuring the safety of workers in all workplaces. Canada’s National Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace took place on April 28th, while the North American Occupational Safety and Health (NAOSH) Week was held during May 1st to 7th. Both events provide an occasion for workers, unions and management to reflect on the importance of ensuring safety in the workplace, as well as an opportunity to raise public awareness about this critical issue.
This past Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court released its reasons in Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. the Attorney General of Canada. This much-anticipated ruling is the first to apply the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [SFL] decision in a constitutional challenge to back-to-work legislation.
The duty on an employer to accommodate a worker with a disability imposes many obligations: to act in good faith, to make a diligent and reasonable search for alternative work. Those obligations, and the extent that employers fail to recognize just how far they go, often lead to problems with the accommodation process. It is just as important for employees to remember that they also have an obligation when the employer it trying to accommodate them.