Legal environment – HRM Now! by Top Hat

Fair and Better Employment in Ontario

January 17, 2018 by rmcfadden

In November 2017, Ontario passed Bill 148, The Fair Workplaces Better Jobs Act, which included a number of changes to the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHS) and labour laws in Ontario. These alterations will be taking effect in early 2018.

This article will focus on Bill 148’s impact on the Ontario Labour Relations Act (OLRA). All HR practitioners should be aware of the implications of these changes to labour laws. The law firm Mathews Dinsdale provides a concise summary of these changes.

Click here to read the about the changes.

The new bill was called Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, but it was the intent of the government to make things fairer and better for workers, not necessarily employers. The changes are in favour of the union movement.

Overall, Bill 148 gives the unions greater benefits around these following themes:

making it easier to unionize workers in certain sectors
mandatory union certification if there is a proven unfair labour practices by the employer
greater access to employee lists and employee contact information
greater flexibility for the Ministry of Labour to conduct various types of union votes
greater fines to the employer for violations

Unionization rates have been on a steady decline in Canada for decades from a high of almost 40%, to a low of under 30% of workers in Canada. Will these changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act start to reverse that trend?

Discussion Questions:

Conduct in-depth research to all the changes to the OLRA due to the passing of Bill 148.

Make a list of all the modifications. Once the list is complete, develop an action plan for an HR department to address these changes with new HR policies and practices.

Innovative Language in a Contract Agreement

January 31, 2017 by rmcfadden

United Steelworkers: More than just business unionism.

healthcare and social problem concept - womans hands holding purple domestic violence awareness ribbon — Syda Productions/Shutterstock

The United Steelworkers who represent the Rivercrest Care Centre workers in Alberta have negotiated a very interesting paid leave for its members. They have negotiated paid leave for domestic violence.

Click here to read the article.

Is this a good thing or bad thing? Does it force the employee to disclose too much? Is good to get it so out in the open?. It is hard to answer the above questions when you do not know what the issue is.

The issue is domestic violence.

Ray White, president of Local 1-207, said that “the contract language is a first for the union in Alberta.” In 2016, Manitoba passed a law that allows “workers who have been with the same employer for at least 90 days to take leave to seek medical attention for themselves or their children, to contact police or a lawyer or to move to a safe place.” Unions in Alberta have been trying to get the Alberta Government to do the same, but they have decided to take the matter to the collective bargaining table. As a result, they have been able to negotiate a better deal that provides for not just any leave but a paid leave for domestic violence.

From an employee wellness perspective it seems a very sensible and reasonable benefit for employees. It will be interesting to see the usage of this domestic violence leave. On one hand it is great for the employee to have the support of the employer and to have financial resources that may assist the individual to deal with the domestic violence. On the other, if it has significant utilization there is a bigger issue in the community which may be greater than the employer can be responsible for.

It is good to see that unions and employers are still willing to sit down, talk and create some innovative language that could be very beneficial for those employees who need social, moral and financial support on this particular issue.

Discussion Question

Partner up and debate this issue of paid domestic violence leave in the workplace. Is it needed? Does it force the employee to discourse too much personal information? Could this type of leave be provided under other existing benefits?

Legislative Change

June 22, 2016 by esoostar

Balance made of people — Source: Arthimedes/Shutterstock

We are lucky, as Canadians, that we live in a society that tries to provide emergency and crisis support when we need it. We are also very lucky that these services are provided by skilled and qualified professionals who take on the role of First-Responder when emergencies and crises happen. First-Responders are usually fire fighters, paramedics, and police officers, among others, who take care of us when we need them the most. On the other hand, who is taking care of First-Responders when the level of crises become insurmountable for those who provide emergency services to us?

There has been a visible and pro-active push through social media and general media campaigns to promote and discuss the impact of on-going crisis response as experienced by First-Responders in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While the level of awareness about the impact of PTSD on First-Responders is increasing, so too has the need to have an increase in the formal recognition of PTSD as a ‘legitimate’ work-related illness in Ontario. To date, First- Responders impacted by PTSD have not been able to access intervention and support through traditional worker’s compensation and benefits due to the stigma associated with PTSD as a mental illness and the lack of recognition that their PTSD stems directly from the workplace.

The issue of PTSD may affect thousands of workers from different unions. This has provided an opportunity for several unions to come together and push for much needed legislative change in the province of Ontario.

Click Here to Read the Article

The power and positive impact of the collective voice is clear. On April 6, 2016, “Bill 163 Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) 2016,” received Royal Assent.

Click Here to Read the Bill

Though the path to make legislative changes may be difficult, it is so important to ensure that successful change is possible and that the end-result truly provides a benefit to everyone.

Discussion Questions:

Why does PTSD need to be recognized as a work-related illness through Bill 163?
Outline the steps that are required for an issue to move through a legislative process and to become law.
What types of programs can an employer put into place to provide resources and support for workers who may be impacted by PTSD?

Good Faith vs. Bad Faith

October 21, 2015 by esoostar

Nothing seems to drive a collective bargaining process into the ground more than the perception that one of the parties is not playing by the rules. A key principle, that is enshrined in the legal process of collective bargaining, is the concept of bargaining in good faith.

It is, in fact, more than just a concept.

When parties agree to bargain in good faith, they agree to honour the rules that they make with each other before the bargaining process even begins. These mutually agreed upon rules include items such as how communication will happen to each of the parties’ respective constituencies and, in the case of public sector bargaining, how information will be communicated to the public at large. The setting of the ground rules between the parties is as serious as the content and the issues that are discussed at the bargaining table. Setting the ground rules for bargaining is part of the legal environment and processes that enable fair, honest, and open negotiations to take place.

As with all kinds of rule based settings, when one of the parties appears to be breaking the rules or does not seem to be playing by the rules, the other party gets upset. When this happens, the other party typically reacts in a negative way, which is not a surprise! Suddenly, the issues at the table take second place, as the negotiations process stalls and hostile allegations of bad faith bargaining start to take hold.

This seems to be the case as the collective bargaining process continues to unfold in the education sector in Ontario.

Click here to read the article.

What makes this particular bargaining process more complex is that there are three parties at bargaining table: the government, the union, and the provincial association representing public school boards. Resolutions to these types of allegations and bargaining processes are never easy. Hopefully, all of the parties will be able to see their way through the layers of complexity and conflict in order to find a way to negotiate and to honour the bargaining process between them.

Discussion questions

What was the agreed upon rule that appears to have been broken?
What are the possible implications of filing a claim of bad faith with the Labour Board?
Why is the issue of communication so important to each of the parties in this process?
As a member of one of the bargaining teams, what steps would you take to resolve these allegations?