Canadian Workplace Legal Post -

I apologize for the lengthy break.  During this time my friend and in-house lawyer, Ms. M, suggested that I post something about Bill 14 - the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act.  Last week on Pink Shirt day the Vancouver Sun ran an article by business reporter, Darah Hansen (aka “goldenkid1”), that also prompted me to address my writer’s block and start posting again.

The Vancouver Sun article is about a private-member’s bill first introduced by a NDP Member of the Legislative Assembly (B.C.) in the Spring of 2011 and then again in the Fall.  Bill M 212 is titled the “Workplace Bullying Prevention Act” and targets the reduction and elimination of workplace bullying by modifying the Workers’ Compensation Act in B.C.  Bill M 212 proposes adding a very broad definition of harassment into the Act.  Given that it is a private-member’s bill by the opposition NDP, it may not get very far.

However, Bill M 212 must be distinguished from Bill 14 that was introduced by the governing Liberal party in the Fall Session.  It also includes a very significant broadening of compensable injuries under the existing “mental stress” provisions of the Act.  Unless mental stress is related to a physical injury suffered in the workplace, the current Act only compensates for mental stress that is “an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment”.  For example, a bank teller who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder following an armed robbery would normally be entitled to compensation for mental stress. Continue reading

I am back from another great CACE conference in Niagara Falls.  During a human rights session, Michael Wagner, who is RG’s managing partner, took a poll of the approximately 100 attendees in that session.  Almost every lawyer in attendance had been dealing in the past year with issues related to requests from employees to accommodate child care-giving responsibilities.  There were also a fair number who had been dealing with requests from employees to accommodate care-giving responsibilities of parents.  There was quiet agreement that with the aging population of “baby boomers” the number of requests related to parental care-giving responsibilities under the prohibited ground of family status will increase. 

Employers need to be prepared for these requests because the scope of an employer’s obligation to accommodate child care-giving or other care-giving responsibilities of family members is an expanding area of human rights law and one of the most active areas in terms of requests for accommodation.  For a closer review of the legal framework in this area, see an article by me in Roper Greyell’s December 2010 newsletter. Continue reading

The problem:  Postmedia News ran an article last week by Katie DeRosa and Lindsay Kines titled “Employers caught off guard by new drunk-driving rules”.  The Vancouver Sun also ran a similar article by Neal Hall titled, “Impaired-driving devices cause headaches for offenders, employers”.  The cause of the problem (aside from people choosing to drive while potentially impaired) is the amendments to the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act that came into effect in September 2010.  A number of factors related to these amendments are resulting in more frequent and/or complex circumstances for employers arising from this off-duty conduct.  A summary of the new consequences is found here.

1.        The blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.05 for administrative warnings may result in more employees obtaining a penalty while off duty.  I say, “may”, because the threat of this lower level could also have the deterrent effect that is intended by the legislation.

2.       The minimum administrative roadside penalty is now three days versus the previous twenty-four hour penalty.  Additionally, the number of days of suspension escalates rapidly to 90 days for a third warning.  This means that penalties are more likely to impede upon an employee’s regular work schedule. Continue reading

The problem: In my post, “Defamation of Employers on Social Media”, I discussed one of the key problems for employers associated with the rapid growth of social media.  Lawyer Marko Vesely discussed this problem recently on bcbusinessonline.ca which also links to another series of posts on social media in the workplace on the Legalist by Lawyer Nicole Byers.  In this post, I discuss attempting to manage this problem and other problems associated with social media at the workplace through carefully drafted policies.

Workplace culture: The first thing that every employer must decide is to what level it will either prohibit or promote the use of social media at the workplace.  Where an employer fits on the workplace cultural spectrum of social media will depend on the nature of the business and the interests it must protect.  Companies like IBM, for example, have embraced social media in order to enhance the satisfaction of their computer techie employees and the relationships that can be strengthened with customers and suppliers who participate on company sponsored facebook groups.  Businesses that have nothing to do with computer technology other than that computers are used by their employees may be more focused on restricting social media use to avoid lost productivity.

Social Media Policy: Once an employer decides on its approach to social media in the workplace then the most useful traditional tool to manage negative issues associated with the use of social media is the development and publication of a social media policy.  While it is not always necessary to have published policies governing the use of social media by employees in order to manage inappropriate conduct, policies that set clear expectations of conduct will assist to achieve employee awareness and defend disciplinary responses.  A carefully drafted social media policy will have certain key parts: Continue reading

Bottom Line: Written employment agreements are an important tool for employers to protect their interests and manage their obligations.  They are especially important when hiring key personnel and executives.  However, they can be cumbersome for use with an entire workforce.  On the other hand, simple offer letters based on a standard template are versatile and can still significantly decrease certain legal obligations such as severance and establish expectations of employee conduct.

Here's your offer!

Some Basics: Employment standards legislation establishes minimum amounts of notice or pay in lieu of notice that an employer must provide an employee when terminating employment without cause.  In B.C., the notice required ranges from zero for employees with less than three months of service to a maximum of eight weeks for employees with eight years of service.  However, the common law also implies into every contract of employment an implied term that the employer must provide reasonable working notice upon termination of employment without cause.  If working notice is not provided then an employee is entitled to damages (money) in lieu of the reasonable notice. Continue reading