Bill to increase Minimum Wage hotly debated in Ontario Legislature Bill 148, Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, is in the midst of being debated by members of the Ontario Legislature. The Bill proposes changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, which include an increase of the minimum wage to $14 per hour by January 1st, 2018 and again to $15 per hour by January 1st, 2019. Political parties are split over the effect the changes will have on businesses and workers. One of the Bill’s sponsors, Hon. Peter Milczyn, said: “the reality is that one out of 10 workers in our province earns the current minimum wage of $11.40. Meanwhile, three out of 10 workers earn less than $15 an hour. This includes millions of people, many of whom are supporting a family, making car payments, trying to save for an education and paying their daily bills. They work very hard every day to try to get ahead, but they feel they’ve been left behind. Increasing the minimum wage will make a real difference in their lives”. Opposition MPP Bill Walker, spoke to the Bill, saying: “the business community is certainly not suggesting, and we’re not supporting, that people don’t need a good living wage. Certainly, at the end of the day, we support a $15 minimum wage. But it has to be done in a timely manner. It has to give people the ability to adjust their business. At the end of the day, the fiscal accountability officer has just come out with a report suggesting that there could be 50,000 jobs lost because of the speed at which they’re going to implement this. So this isn’t just us, Mr. Speaker. This is a third-party resource of this Legislature that is suggesting that.” In any case, the effects of the new rules, if passed, on both employers and employees will be profound. Until then, we will have to wait to see how the changes take shape in their final form. If you are in need of a labour or employment lawyer, please visit our employment page and contact one of our lawyers today. For any other legal services or inquiries, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP directly at 416-449-1400 or visit our website for more information. By: Stuart Clark, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawOctober 18, 2017June 18, 2020
Colleges and Faculty to Continue Contract Discussion to Avoid Strike In a previous blog post, we discuss the call for a strike that Ontario’s colleges faculty members will vote for in the fall, after rejecting a 7.5% wage hike offered by the Ontario government. Now, they are back to negotiating after the Thanksgiving weekend. Ontario’s colleges are back at the bargaining table today, as the strike deadline of October 15th approaches. The talks have been put on hiatus at the end of September after no progress was made. The union represents “full-time professors as well as “partial load” instructors who teach between seven and 12 hours a week, as well as college counsellors and librarians,” and the last offer that was received from the colleges provided a 7.5 per cent raise over four years, as well as improvements to benefits and a lump-sum payment which they did not accept. CEO of the college council, Don Sinclair, has reassured students that the colleges are concerned and will provide updates as they become available. In this case, the government has indicated that, before any strike vote, that the faculty union members vote on the last offer they have received. Employers usually have this right, stored under s. 42 of the Labour Relations Act, which says: (1) Before or after the commencement of a strike or lock-out, the employer of the employees in the affected bargaining unit may request that a vote of the employees be taken as to the acceptance or rejection of the offer of the employer last received by the trade union in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties and the Minister shall, and in the construction industry the Minister may, on the terms that he or she considers necessary direct that a vote of the employees to accept or reject the offer be held and thereafter no further such request shall be made. The ability for the employer to call for a vote is a tactic of last resort—and can only be done once. In fact, in 2010, when the current collective agreement was signed, colleges used s. 42 to call for a vote, which approved the agreement with a slim majority. Only time will tell to see if this strategy will pay off for a second time, or if both parties will be forced to return to the bargaining table. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawOctober 10, 2017June 18, 2020
Toronto Zoo Strike Costs Toronto $4 Million Last spring, the Toronto Zoo saw a strike over wages for its workers, which caused the Zoo to remain closed for 5 weeks while an agreement was reached. The agreement gave the workers a 1.25-per-cent wage hike in each of the four years of their contracts and the non-union staff will be closely watched as the Zoo board will decide on what they will receive as a result. Figures were released in a report on attendance and revenue which revealed: The Zoo expected 218,012 visitors Net forecast loss of $3.99 million After they re-opened, they still saw a decrease in attendance of 65,125 due to cancellations of group trips and camps. With the addition of the pandas, attendance hit 1.3 million and is expected to dip once they are transported to Calgary. Overall, August attendance levels were below target, but, still above 2016 levels with a rebound happening in September. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawOctober 4, 2017June 18, 2020
Ontario’s Workforce is Increasingly Temporary Recently, Fiera Foods, an industrial bakery in Toronto, came under fire for the third death of a worker at its factory since 1999. All three workers were temporary workers and killed in workplace accidents, giving rise to questions of the quality of training that such employees received. A temporary worker is more likely to be injured on the job. Research suggests that temps receive less training while also being assigned riskier work. Last year, non-clerical temps suffered more than twice as many injuries as non-temps doing similar work. Dangerous working conditions are just one aspect of employment that employment legislation addresses. The Employment Standards Act is designed with the benefit of employees in mind through providing protections for them in respect of their employment relationships. However the legislation in Ontario fails to include some of the most vulnerable individuals in the workforce. Temporary workers fall outside the majority of the protections provided by legislation such as the Employment Standards Act. Unprotected, yet on the rise. Employment in Ontario can no longer be considered made up of stable jobs with benefits and security. Instead, temporary work positions are increasing, and taking the place of permanent positions. In Ontario it has increased by 20% in the last ten years. In the GTA alone there are over 1700 temporary employment agencies. And with the rise of temporary work comes the rise of not only safety issues, but also insecurity. Employers of temporary workers are permitted to treat temporary workers differently than permanent workers. They can provide the temporary employees with no benefits and lower wages than their permanent counterparts. There is also no obligation to make temporary workers permanent, even after years of uninterrupted service. What is especially troubling, given the deaths of three temporary workers at one factory, is that there is a liability incentive for companies using temp agencies. The workplace can be investigated and charged by the Ministry of Labour, but if it uses a temp agency, it is not liable under WSIB. Under WSIB it is the temp agency that is liable for injury, not the workplace. This saves the workplace money on insurance premiums and incentivizes the workplace to staff its entire workforce with temporary workers, and there is nothing in the legislation to prevent this. In response to the deficiencies in providing protections for the present character of the workforce in Ontario, namely that temporary workers increasingly make up a large proportion in certain industries, Bill 148 is being proposed. “Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, ” the proposed legislation best known for aiming to increase minimum wage to $15, addresses some of the vulnerabilities of temporary workers. If successful, the Bill would require equal wages for temporary and permanent workers, as well as making it easier for temp workers to unionize. The Bill aims to curb companies avoidance of creating permanent jobs by lessening the financial incentives of employing temp workers. However, in its present version, Bill 148 does not require employers to make workers permanent after a certain period of employment, nor does it restrict the proportion of the workforce that can be filled by temporary workers. Employee advocates are hoping that as the Bill progresses it will close more loopholes and increase protections for the full nature of the Ontario workforce. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 27, 2017June 18, 2020
Recycling Plant to Pay $1.33M in Fines, Back Wages A recycling plant in North York has been employing temp-workers for years at a low-wage and has been ordered to pay $1.33M in fines and back pay to workers. Canada Fibers Ltd. has violated the City of Toronto’s fair wage policy after a two year investigation revealed they were paying workers below the agreed upon rates. Canada Fibers has two, seven-year contract with the city to process blue bin recyclables, and within those contracts included that all employees, including temp workers, will be paid $12.34 an hour with pay increases tied to inflation. The contracts with the city are worth more than $264 million. After a series of reports by The Star on a worker who had been working for years at minimum wage with the company, $11 an hour at the time, an investigation was launched in 2015 into the company which found that 1,600 workers were owed money due to low wages. The investigation was conducted over two years by the city’s Fair Wage Office. It also found that Canada Fibers uses 5 different temp agencies to staff their facilities. Now, Canada Fibers has agreed to pay approximately $1.2M in good faith payments to employees and a $135,000 administration fee to the City of Toronto. Such an investigation highlights how important Bill 148 is to provide equal work for equal pay to temp agency workers and part time workers, as improvements are needed in the enforcement of this. Part time and temp workers who do the same work as their full time counterparts deserve the same treatment and pay. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawSeptember 26, 2017June 18, 2020
WSIB to Re-examine Rejected Claims from Former General Electric Employees Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicenter for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals. This however, is nothing new. GE’s plant workers built household appliances, diesel locomotive engines, and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer causing, at levels that were hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report. Lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to: Solvents Welding Fumes Epoxy Resins PCBs Beryllium Uranium Occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) will now review the more than 250 claims. This will also include a review of the cancer and non-cancer related claims, with updated research on chemical exposure levels and illnesses related to them, and will also look at claims to allow widows, widowers and children of former workers who died without realizing it may have been linked to a workplace illness. The plant has announced however, that it will be shutting down after 125 years, which will leave 350 employees without work. They say that it is not closing due to the illness claims, but due to changing markets. The claimants won’t rest until they have money in their pockets, even though the money may not help some of them beat their battles with cancer or disease, they will be able to live knowing that the employer they worked years for, recognizes they are entitled to something. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 20, 2017June 18, 2020
Google Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay Google is under fire yet again with another lawsuit, this time, it has to do with gender-based pay discrimination at their headquarters in Mountain View, California. As much as 90 women have responded to lawyer James Finberg’s call to determine how man women have been discriminated against, including three women who are listed in the suit to seek class action status for the claim. James is representing three women, Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri – who all quit after realizing they were put on career tracks that would give them less pay than their male counterparts. They seek loss of wages and a piece of Google’s profits, in addition, the lawyer will try and represent up to 21,000 workers of Google – as part of the goal to seek justice for all women who are employed and have been employed by Google in the last 4 years. The suit follows a federal labour investigation that, with what they have found, will help the suit. They made preliminary findings of systemic pay discrimination among the 21,000 employees in almost ever job classification. In addition, a former employee of Google created a spreadsheet in 2015 which was obtained by USA Today and New York Times which revealed how significant the gap is. The federal investigation was part of a suit against Google by the government to bar them from doing business with the Federal government until it released thousands of documents related to an audit over its pay practices. The three former employees listed on the suit shared their stories: Kelly Ellis Hired with four years of experience Placed at Level 3 (where new college graduates are often placed) Weeks later a male colleague with the same experience was hired into Level 4 She was put on the less-prestigious front-end development team, despite having experience in backend development The backend team is higher paid and almost exclusively men Kelli Wisuri Hired into a Level 2 Sales role, men with similar qualifications entered at Level 3 Men were more often hired into roles that received commission Holly Pease Entered with 10 years of experience as a network engineer and oversaw “technical” staff Wasn’t considered to be a “technical” employee herself – limited her pay Denied the opportunity to transition to the “technical” classification After returning from medical leave she was moved out of engineering entirely Much of the lawsuit revolves around the tiered pay system, as the higher tiers are given higher salaries and bonuses. Additionally, if one is considered a “technical” employee, they are given higher pay than those classified as “non-technical” employees. They also claim that Google violated California law, including the California Equal Pay Act. In addition they want Google to correct its hiring practices. Even though Google pledged three years ago they will “close the race and gender gap to make its workforce better reflect the panoply of people it serves around the globe,” they are still overwhelmingly male and employs few Hispanic and African Americans. The suit, if designated as a class action lawsuit, will cover all women at Google over the last 4 years. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 18, 2017June 18, 2020
Significant Changes Coming to Ontario’s Labour and Employment Laws Ontario is one step closer to approving the minimum wage increase of $15 an hour, however that is not the only change that is on Ontario’s horizon. A legislative committee studying the bill has concluded its work, advancing the bill to the fall session of the legislature, which begins September 11. Bill 148, known as the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, includes much more than a dramatic increase in the minimum wage. The bill makes large amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), Ontario’s minimum standards legislation, and the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”), which governs unionization. Many of these changes are favourable to employees, in an effort to alleviate the impacts of precarious work. Based on a worker’s classification as either an “employee,” “dependent contractor,” and “independent contractor,” a worker gets different rights under Ontario’s minimum standards legislation. The Ontario government seeks to introduce an automatic presumption that a worker is an “employee” (entitling them to the most rights) and that it would be illegal for an employer to misclassify its workers (to evade minimum standards legislation). The government also proposed to regulate scheduling inside a workplace. If the bill is passed, an employee who has been working for more than three months in a workplace can request a change in their schedule or work location without fearing dismissal. The well-known “3 hour rule” (i.e that a worker be paid for at least 3 hours for a shift) has been expanded to all workplaces and will even be triggered if an employer cancels a shift 48 hours before the employee was to commence working. An employee will also gain the right to refuse shifts without fear of termination if the request is made less than 96 hours before the proposed shift was to begin. Vacation pay entitlements will also be increased: an employee working less than 5 years for the same employer will continue to receive 2 weeks of paid vacation but an employee working more than 5 years for the same employer will receive 3 weeks of statutory vacation. The government also focused on making stronger provisions for equal pay for equal work. If passed, it would become illegal to pay part-time workers less than full-time workers and temporary help workers less than their directly-hired counterparts (absent other objective factors). Moreover, if a worker believes that they were being paid less on the basis of sex or employment status, they would gain the right to request a written review where the employer must either a) raise their wage or b) provide written reasons about why they disagree. Temporary help agencies would also face further regulation on their practices, including owing its employees one week “termination of assignment” pay (similar to “severance pay”) if the employee was terminated from a contract that was supposed to last 3 months or more. These employees would not get “termination of assignment” pay if they were placed in a new contract within a week. The government also hopes to introduce two (2) days of paid leave of absences and eight (8) days of unpaid personal emergency leave. This leave would cover personal illnesses, injuries and medical emergencies (for both the employee and his or her close relatives) and situations of sexual or domestic violence. Employers can request reasonable evidence of the employee’s entitlement to take the leave. It will also become less burdensome to file a complaint under the ESA. Previously, employees who felt their minimum standards were being breached needed to first notify their employer before making a complaint. This requirement would be removed under the new bill. The Director (the person who enforces the ESA) will also be allowed to collect security for any amounts owing under the ESA. Notices of contravention and Recognitions would be able to be widely publicized, despite privacy laws. Alcohol servers and others would be happy to know that the government has created a more specific definition of what constitutes a “tip” in order to prevent employers from stealing tips meant for their employees. The field of labour and employment law is becoming very complex for both employees and employers. It is important to seek out an experience labour and employment lawyer who knows not only the current law, but changes on the horizon. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawAugust 30, 2017June 18, 2020
Ontario’s Colleges Call for Strike By: Stuart Clark, Student-at-Law According to the Toronto Star, the Ontario government has offered faculty members at the province’s colleges a 7.5% wage hike. However, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”), has called for a strike vote in the fall—wanting to address other issues beyond compensation. Employers and workers represented by a union negotiate working conditions through the process of collective bargaining, governed by Ontario’s Labour Relations Act, 1995. Once a union has been certified or recognized in accordance with the Act (s. 16), both parties are obliged to come together and bargain in good faith to reach a collective agreement (s. 17). For sophisticated employers and unions, the scope of an agreement can be immense; covering everything from salaries, to the hiring process, and even how workers are individually scheduled for their shifts. For example, in a recent blog post, we noted that LCBO workers had threatened to strike over the July long weekend. Workers have since ratified a deal, which included terms that end the LCBO’s practice of scheduling two-hour shifts. This is just one example of how granular a collective agreement can become. Normally, for the agreement to come into force, it must be ‘ratified’ by the members of the union’s bargaining unit (s. 44), with those supporting the offer totalling more than 50% of votes cast. Even if union leadership supports a deal, this is no guarantee of its success. In this case, the government has indicated that, before any strike vote, that the faculty union members vote on the last offer they have received. Employers usually have this right, stored under s. 42 of the Act, which says: (1) Before or after the commencement of a strike or lock-out, the employer of the employees in the affected bargaining unit may request that a vote of the employees be taken as to the acceptance or rejection of the offer of the employer last received by the trade union in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties and the Minister shall, and in the construction industry the Minister may, on the terms that he or she considers necessary direct that a vote of the employees to accept or reject the offer be held and thereafter no further such request shall be made. The ability for the employer to call for a vote is a tactic of last resort—and can only be done once. In fact, in 2010, when the current collective agreement was signed, colleges used s. 42 to call for a vote, which approved the agreement with a slim majority. Only time will tell to see if this strategy will pay off for a second time, or if both parties will be forced to return to the bargaining table. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawAugust 10, 2017June 19, 2020
Update: 700 Employees at Pearson International Airport Go On Strike By: Nicolas Di Nardo As noted in our blog published earlier this week, 700 employees have gone on strike at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. The 700 employees represented by the Teamsters union went on strike on Thursday night, after rejecting an offer from their employer, Swissport. Luckily, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority has a contingency plan in place, however no details were provided. Airlines have also said they were prepared if their workers decided to join the picket line. Swissport is connected to 30 of the 74 airlines at Pearson which include airlines such as Sunwing, Air Transat, Air France and British Airways. The proposal presented to employees by Swissport was rejected by a 95 per cent margin. The union believes the contract is unfair to its workers, something they demonstrate as they march with signs and chant “respect” out front of Pearson Airport. So far it is unclear how long this will last, but if you’re trying to catch a plane in the coming days, you may want to check to make sure your airline is not one of those thirty airlines effected. For more details on the strike, please read our blog that goes into more detail on this matter. Devry Smith Frank LLP (“DSF”) is a full service law firm in Toronto that has experienced Labour Law Lawyers that can assist employers in the event of union organizing, bargaining and negotiations, and strikes. If you require a Labour law Lawyer, contact DSF’s Labour Lawyers today, or call our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJuly 28, 2017June 22, 2020