Category: Employment Law

Pregnant Employees are Entitled to Greater Notice of Dismissal

By , April 6, 2013 1:07 pm

Is a pregnant woman entitled to a great amount of notice of her dismissal than other employees? Does firing an employee while she is pregnant merit an award of punitive damages?

The answer from at least one Ontario Superior Court judge, to both questions, is yes.

Background

My employment law blog has previously looked at the issue of termination of employment following maternity leave in the post Fired After Maternity Leave, which is, by far, the blog’s most popular post.

As is explained in that post, if an employer takes the decision to terminate an employee off on maternity leave for reasons other than those related to the fact that she took maternity leave (which is a question of fact), then, while the decision and action itself may not be wrongful, the amount of notice to be provided to that dismissed employee may not be sufficient. (Again, for an explanation of what makes a dismissal, “wrongful” see What is Wrongful Dismissal?)

Continue reading 'Pregnant Employees are Entitled to Greater Notice of Dismissal'»

How to Tell if an Ontario Worker is a Construction Employee

By , March 18, 2013 9:32 am
Not all workers in Ontario are covered by all aspects of Ontario’s labour and employment laws. Some workers’ rights, for example bank employees and those who work for the federal government, are governed by the Canada Labour Code. In other cases, even those who are generally covered by the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 are not covered for all aspects.
One such exemption is with respect to “construction employees.” However, sometimes determining whether a worker is a “construction employee” is more complicated than it may initially appear.

Lack of Concrete Time Limit in Non-Competition Clause Unreasonable

By , February 15, 2013 2:22 pm
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has ruled that a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement used by a construction company was unenforceable because the applicable time limit was notconcrete. In Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, 2013 ONCA 72 (CanLII), released February 5, 2013 the Court of Appeal reversed an earlier Application decision, 2012 ONSC 1840, of the Honourable Justice Paul Perell, who had found the agreements enforceable.

Facts of the Case

The facts of the case are rather complex and involve a complicated transaction in which the employee, Derek Martin, sold his interest in a concrete company to his eventual employer, ConCreate USL. An oversimplification of the material facts is as follows:When Mr. Martin sold his interest in his company to ConCreate and joined them as an employee he signed an employment agreement containing, amongst other things, a non-completion agreement and a non-solicitation agreement.

The agreement provided that Mr. Martin’s covenants not to compete with ConCreate or solicit its customers or staff would run for a period ending twenty-four months after his disposition of his direct or indirect ownership interest in the company.

The agreement further provided that third parties, including lenders, had to provide consent to Mr. Martin’s disposition of his interest in the company.

The latter two points were the points fatal to the agreement. Continue reading 'Lack of Concrete Time Limit in Non-Competition Clause Unreasonable'»

Why Your Organization Needs a Social Media Policy

By , February 8, 2013 1:38 pm

Imagine, for a moment, the most ridiculous act of self-harm that an individual could do himself. Did you imagine stapling your scrotum to a 4 x 4 wooden plank? Because someone actually did that, and it partially speaks to why your business of organization needs a social media policy.

By now the facts of the 2011 Ontario Labour Relations Board case of International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50 v ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd, 2011 CanLII 46582 (Ont. L.R.B.) should be notorious:

ThyssenKrupp dismissed an employee from employment when a video posted on the internet showing him with his genitals exposed and his scrotum being stapled to a 4 x 4 wooden plank came to its attention.

The employee was employed as an elevator mechanic by ThyssenKrupp. The employer had assigned the employee, together with several other employees, to work at a large office building new construction project on Wellington St. West in downtown Toronto. ThyssenKrupp was a subcontractor to PCL Construction, the general contractor at that project. It was apparent from the video the employee and several others in the video were employees of ThyssenKrupp who were working at a PCL Construction site. The dismissed employee wore his ThyssenKrupp shirt in the video.

The employee was dismissed for violating the company’s Workplace Harassment policy; his genitals having been exposed for an extended period of time.

In upholding the dismissal OLRB Vice-Chair Harry Freedman wrote what many must be thinking:

… simply because some men like the Jackass principals are prepared to engage in grossly stupid behaviour and then attempt to profit from their stupidity through television, internet videos and movies, or like the grievor by taking bets on whether they will actually engage in that sort of conduct, does not mean that kind of behaviour ought to be tolerated in the workplace, even if it takes place outside of working hours during employees’ lunch or break periods.

I am prepared to assume, without deciding, that the grievor was unaware of the details of the responding party’s workplace harassment policy and therefore need not determine whether his conduct was contrary to that policy. In my view, any reasonable employee would recognize that exposing one’s genitals and having one’s scrotum stapled to a 4×4 wooden board on the employer’s premises and permitting that conduct to be recorded on a video is patently unacceptable in almost any workplace particularly when the employer of the employees involved can be easily identified. An employer, in my view, need not establish and promulgate a policy prohibiting that kind of behaviour. (Paras. 30-31) [Emphasis added.]

To the point of why a social media policy is necessary for employers, Vice-Chair Freedman added:

The responding party is engaged in a safety sensitive industry. The incident occurred at a major construction project in downtown Toronto. It was clear the employees were engaged in pranks and horseplay that culminated in the incident for which the grievor was discharged. In these circumstances, and in view of the evidence about the notoriety of the video among general contractors and others in the construction industry, I am satisfied the responding party has demonstrated real prejudice to its reputation as a safety conscious elevator contractor with a highly skilled and competent workforce. In my view, an elevator contractor that is believed to tolerate pranks and horseplay in the workplace is at significant risk of having its business reputation damaged. A general contractor or owner might well have second thoughts about having elevators installed by individuals associated with a workplace where employees engage in stunts and horseplay and are proud to have done so. (Para. 34) [Emphasis added.]

Examples such as that of the ThyssenKrupp case abound. Just this week a story broke about a St. Louis Applebees’ employee who was terminated after posting to the internet a picture of a customer’s complaint about the automatic application of 18% gratuity. In a statement from Applebee’s president Mike Archer responding to the incident, the company president wrote that:

…the guests who visit Applebee’s… expect and deserve to be treated with professionalism and care in everything we do. That is a universal standard in the hospitality business. That includes respecting and protecting the privacy of every guest, which is why our franchisees who own and operate Applebee’s have strict policies to protect personal information — even guest’s names.

Why Have a Social Media Policy?

Continue reading 'Why Your Organization Needs a Social Media Policy'»

Lessons in ‘Duty to Accommodate’ for Employers

By , January 4, 2013 9:01 am

The duty to accommodate can be one of the most frustrating and confusing issues for employers. The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision of Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (CanLII), offers some guidance on scope of the duty to accommodate, particularly where that accommodation comes at a significant cost.

Like R. v. Cole, mentioned in this blog several times, Moore is not, strictly speaking, an employment law case; it is an education case. Actually, when one thinks about it, Cole was kind of an education case too, but I digress.

Moore involved the provision of special education instruction to Jeffrey Moore, a public school student with learning disabilities. As a result of financial constraints, the school board announced that it would no longer be able to provide the intensive support that Jeffrey had previously enjoyed. In order to continue obtaining the sort of instruction he required, Jeffrey’s only option was to attend private school, at significant cost to his family.

The Moores brought an application before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was discrimination against Jeffrey by the Board and the Province and ordered a wide range of sweeping systemic remedies against both. The Tribunal also ordered that the family be reimbursed for the tuition costs of Jeffrey’s private school. On appeal, the British Columbia Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision 2008 BCSC 264 (CanLII), finding that there was no discrimination. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada (Abella J. writing for the Court) however found that discrimination had occurred and reinstated the Tribunal’s decision.

Continue reading 'Lessons in ‘Duty to Accommodate’ for Employers'»

Right to a Fair Opportunity on Probation

By , December 24, 2012 9:58 am

Christmas is time where some industries, such as retail, become exceptionally busy. In order to meet customer demand employers take on extra, seasonal staff. While some employers are upfront about the nature of the employment relationship, others inform potential employees that they will be employed on a trial, or “probationary” basis, and if things ‘work out’ they may be hired on full-time.

This blog has previously considered the issue of what it means to be on a “probationary period” at Ontario law, Probationary Periods and Notice. This post will look at employers’ rights to terminate employees on probation and employees’ rights to be afforded a fair opportunity to demonstrate their talents.

Starting Point

As discussed in the earlier post, under Ontario law there is no automatic “probationary period” in an employment contract. Unless the employer specifically sets out to the employee in his or her employment agreement that the employee will be “on probation” for a specific period of time and what the implications of that probationary period will be (which provisions themselves must not offend the minimum requirements of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000), the employment contract will be deemed to commence without a probationary period. Therefore, simply telling an employee that he or she will be “on probation” may not be sufficient to create the situation desired by employers.

Continue reading 'Right to a Fair Opportunity on Probation'»

Employment Law: Look Before You Leap

By , December 6, 2012 2:00 pm

For many people the new year brings with it new career plans.  But before handing in your notice it is important to take some time to understand the contractual conditions of your current employment.   Many employees jump into new roles and immediately violate some of the terms of their previous employment.  Whether you are joining another company or starting a business of your own, be sure to review your current contract to be fully aware of the notice period you are required to give and, most importantly, to understand the terms of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses.  These clauses may restrict you from starting in your new role for a specific amount of time or prevent you from carrying on a business in a certain geographical region.

However, many non-solicitation and non-compete clauses are not enforceable, even if you originally agreed to them in your employment contract.  Having an employment lawyer review the contract before you hand in your notice will let you start your new role with some peace of mind.  The alternative may be a costly and stressful dispute at a time when you should be focusses on making your new role a success.

Sean Bawden, employment lawyer at Kelly Santini LLPSean Bawden

Court of Appeal for Ontario Affirms Injunction Against Dentist Violating Non-Solicitation Agreement.

By , December 6, 2012 1:42 pm

How enforceable is a non-solicitation agreement in an Ontario employment contract? According to a decision released earlier today by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Smilecorp Inc. v. Pesin, 2012 ONCA853, sometimes the answer is “very enforceable.”

Continue reading 'Court of Appeal for Ontario Affirms Injunction Against Dentist Violating Non-Solicitation Agreement.'»

Poorly Drafted Employment Agreement Proves Costly

By , November 26, 2012 1:49 pm

If a termination provision in an employment agreement does not technically violate the provisions of the Employment Standards Act at the time of termination, but has the potential to do so at other times, is it still enforceable?

“No” says the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In a decision released in August of 2011, Wright v. The Young and Rubicam Group of Companies (Wunderman), 2011 ONSC 4720 (CanLII), and somehow missed by this blog since then, the Honourable Justice Wailan Low held that a termination provision that failed to provide for the continuation of benefits and had the potential to be offside the provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 was not enforceable by the employer.

Continue reading 'Poorly Drafted Employment Agreement Proves Costly'»

Chronic Absenteeism: Employer Rights and Obligations

By , November 1, 2012 9:01 am

Recently I blogged about the rights of chronically-absent employees. However, there is a flip side to the situation: the rights of employers.

The two most commonly-asked questions by employers with respect to the chronically absent are: can I fire this individual, and, if so, how much is it going to cost me?

Can I Fire Him or Her?

The answer to the first question, whether or not an employer can dismiss an employee for chronic absenteeism, is typically yes. With certain exceptions (see e.g. section 239.1 of the Canada Labour Code and the decision in Kingsway Transport v Teamsters, Local Union 91 (John Sears Grievance), 2012 CanLII 20111, summarized by me in an earlier post (Employer Cannot Dismiss CLC Employees Absent Due to Workplace Injury) employers are able to terminate any employee’s employment, provided that the employer provides the appropriate amount of notice and, where applicable, pays the appropriate amount of severance.

How Much Will it Cost Me?

The answer as to how much it will cost an employer to fire a chronically-absent employee depends upon a host of factors. There are a number of questions that must be answered before an answer can be provided.

Continue reading 'Chronic Absenteeism: Employer Rights and Obligations'»

© Kelly Santini LLP 2012.