The Ontario Labour Relations Board recently dismissed an application where an employee claimed that her employer threatened her with discipline for exercising her right to refuse unsafe work. Why? The employee did not have the right to delay the employer’s investigation of her work refusal, to wait until her preferred union representative completed a personal matter and attended at the workplace.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a case where an employee claimed that her employer threatened her with discipline for exercising her right to refuse unsafe work; an FAQ that addresses employee privacy; and changes to the express entry program which came into force on November 10, 2016.
In an application filed under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, once the matter has been heard, and the Tribunal has found the respondent to be liable, the next stage is that of remedy. Monetary and non–monetary damages may be awarded as was the case in Kohli v. International Clothiers, where the applicant, Ms. Kohli, had filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: An employee who was told to quit if she felt unsafe; current and 2017 payroll rates; and the introduction of a new Bill to cover physical size and weight in human rights legislation.
In the recent decision Podobnik v. Society of St. Vincent de Paul Stores (Ottawa) Inc., the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) held that the Employer had reprised against the Employee when it terminated her employment after she had exercised her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to refuse unsafe work. The OLRB did not agree that the termination was the result of an legitimate organizational restructuring. Rather, it held that the Employee’s termination was motivated “at least in part” as a reprisal against her for exercising her rights under the OHSA in the weeks preceding her termination.
Is an employer’s request for medical documentation after an employee’s illness in keeping with the Human Rights Code (“Code”)? The following case examines whether or not it is a breach of the Code for an employer to request medical documentation as a condition of returning an employee to work.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A case where an employee filed an Application alleging that he was subjected to differential treatment on the basis of Human Rights Code grounds ; a case where an employer was able to rely on a termination provision to justify the payment made to the employee when he was terminated without cause; and Ontario’s new legislation addressing sexual harassment (Bill 132).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court recently concluded that, when an employee returned from maternity leave and was not reinstated to her original position with the same hours and salary, this constituted constructive dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of sex and family status.
The case of Smith v. The Rover’s Rest, 2013 HRTO 700 is a recent case dealing with sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code of Ontario. At the time of the incidents, the applicant, Debbie Smith was a 39-year-old mother being paid $7.00 per hour as a bartender at the Rover’s Rest in […]
With the allegations against CBC Radio personality Jian Ghomeshi dominating the news over the past several weeks, it is useful to examine how the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal addressed allegations of workplace sexual harassment in the recent case of Horner v. Peelle Company Ltd. (2014) HRTO 1211.
Layoffs are confusing for many more reasons than simply how to spell it (layoff, lay off, lay-off?) A layoff is a termination of employment; however, the use of the term layoff is usually understood to have a connotation of either resulting from a shortage of work or being temporary in nature, rather than permanent termination or for cause.
We are often asked by our clients how long one of their employees has to be off work before it can justifiably take the position that an employment relationship has been “frustrated”. Employers often wonder this because when an employment relationship is frustrated, the employee is not entitled to common law notice or pay in lieu of such notice . So, how long does it take? 1 year? 18 months? 2 years? 5 years?
The recent human rights decision of Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc. examines the issue of employer liability under the Human Rights Code of Ontario. What happens when there are allegations of discrimination but no findings?
Whistleblowing occurs when employees reveal corporate wrongdoing, usually in their organization, to law enforcement. Unfortunately, it is common for whistleblowers to experience demotion, dismissal and otherwise negative treatment from their employers after they disclose the malfeasance or corruption.