Drug Policies

Photo Credit - Get Budding on Unsplash

Photo Credit – Get Budding on Unsplash

I blogged about pot in the workplace early this past August – see my post here. The legalization of marijuana made the news again, as Ontario announced its plans with respect to how the legal sale of marijuana will be practically rolled out. Basically, the LCBO will run 150 retail outlets selling marijuana, and it will also be available to purchase online. The mom and pop marijuana dispensaries, which have always been illegal, will continue to be illegal.

Based on my own observations it seems like there are a lot more than 150 of these illegal dispensaries, and it is hard to imagine that 150 government run stores will be able to meet the clear market demand. Concerns have been raised that the black market will continue to flourish, even once these new legal stores open.   

Ontario also announced last week that, for now, legal use of recreational cannabis will be confined to private residences.  Similar to alcohol, it will not be allowed in public places or workplaces.

As I discussed in my previous post, workplace policies may need to be updated based on the changes to the law.

While drug laws in this country seem to be softening, a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada this June seems to have given drug policies more teeth. In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp the court upheld the termination of an employee for a one time breach of the employer drug and alcohol policy. In the past, a one time breach has rarely justified with cause termination.

The policy in question required employees to disclose any addictions prior to the occurrence of a drug or alcohol related incident. The policy specified that those who did disclose would be supported with treatment, and that those who did not disclose, but subsequently tested positive for drugs or alcohol could be terminated.  

In this case the employee, Stewart, who held a safety sensitive coal mining position, did not disclose his addiction, was involved in a workplace accident and subsequently tested positive for cocaine. During the investigation following the accident Stewart disclosed that he thought he was addicted to cocaine. Elk Valley terminated Stewart’s employment, in accordance with the terms of its policy.

Stewart brought a human rights complaint on the grounds that he was terminated for his addiction, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000.

The Alberta Human Rights tribunal held that Stewart was terminated for breaching the company policy, and not because of his addiction, and in the alternative, that discrimination was permissible where there was a bona fide occupational requirement.

Stewart argued that part of his addiction was a denial of his addiction, and therefore it was his addiction that prevented him from complying with the policy with respect to disclosing his addiction. On this point the Tribunal stated, and the Supreme Court agreed, that while he may have been in denial about his addiction he knew that he should not take drugs before working and had the ability to decide whether or not to do so, as well as the ability to disclose his drug use to his employer (and comply with the policy). Denial about his addiction was thus deemed irrelevant.

The Tribunal reached the decision that there was no prima facie discrimination and that the mere presence of an addiction does not establish prima facie discrimination.Stewart appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench and to the Alberta Court of Appeal, both courts dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court also upheld the Tribunal’s decision in an 8/1 split.

In many cases, where there is an addiction related issue in the facts with respect to a termination, employers may have felt hamstrung. This case indicates that where the policy is clear, and where the employee has the capacity to comply with the terms of the policy (addicted or not), a termination can be justified.   

Parental Obligations in the Workplace

Photo Credit - Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash

Photo Credit – Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash

For many of us who are parents, September feels like the real New Year.  Workplace issues can arise with respect to shifting childcare obligations, as kids transition from summer schedules to school schedules. Employers may be met with requests to accommodate worker childcare obligations or requests for time off and should be prepared with respect to how to handle these issues both practically and legally.

I’ve blogged about family status accommodation in the past – see my posts here and here. As people delay having children until later in life and once they have more established careers, employers are more likely to be met with requests for flexibility, accommodation and time off from key personnel or managers. Our aging population also means that the demands on many of us, to look after both parents and children, are increasing.

How should an employer respond if an employee suddenly asserts that their normal work hours discriminate against them on the basis as their status as a parent? What if an employee suddenly requests previously unscheduled time off, asserting parental obligations? Here are some of the legal requirements.

Requests for Leaves and Time Off

Under the Employment Standards Act employers who have more than 50 employees are required to provide employees with personal emergency leave of up to 10 unpaid days for illness, injury, medical emergency or urgent matter relating to children and other dependant family members. The expected changes to the Employment Standards Act under Bill 148 are expected to make this leave available to all employees, not just those in workplaces of 50 or more. Additionally, the first 2 days of the leave will be paid days. Bill 148 would also extend the length of unpaid family medical leaves, which would be increased from the current eight weeks in a 26-week period, to 27 weeks in 52 week period. For more information on these changes see my post here.

Discriminating Against Parents

Family status is a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Family status is defined as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.” Employees may, for example, assert that their work schedule or location discriminates against them on the basis of family status where they encounter difficulty meeting their family obligations because of the requirements of their job.

As with other protected grounds employers have a duty to accommodate, up to the point of undue hardship. What exactly this means in the context of childcare has been a moving target in Canada and as with other forms of accommodation, accommodation of family status will look different, depending on the context.

The Legal Test

The current legal test is set out in the Misetich v Value Villages Stores case.  In short, the adjudicator required the employee to establish that he or she is a member of a group protected under the human rights code, has experienced adverse treatment, and that the ground of discrimination was a factor in the adverse treatment (paragraph 43).  The onus then shifts to the employer to establish that the employee cannot be accommodated to the point of undue hardship (paragraph 57).

The case confirmed that the family status test is similar to the discrimination tests set out for other protected grounds. For further details, see my past blog post on this case here.

Practical Tips for Accommodating Family Status

  • Once an employer becomes aware of their employees’ need for accommodation they have an obligation to assist the employee in finding a solution;
  • The employee must actively investigate solutions to their problem, beyond simply changing their work schedule, for example. While it may be an employee’s preference that they be able to pick up their children from school, this is not necessarily something that an employer must accommodate. While substantial childcare obligations must be accommodated, personal preference does not need to be;
  • If a change in the employee’s position or work hours will not cause undue hardship to the employer, it may be an appropriate solution. However, consider how other employees may be impacted; and
  • Always document conversations with an employee requesting accommodation. Include accommodations that were considered and if they were not adopted make sure the notes set out the reasons why.

Family status accommodation remains a relatively new area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and while employers continue to struggle with where is the legal, practical and morale line to draw, the one certainty is that employer have no choice but to engage in meaningful conversation, to determine whether the accommodation is required. Blanket denials for business needs are no longer an option.

Labour Day

Photo Credit - Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Photo Credit – Aaron Burden on Unsplash

The first Monday of September is Labour Day (Labor Day to our friends in the States). In Canada, this is a provincial statutory holiday, celebrated in all of our Provinces and Territories. Most businesses will be closed, with the exception of business that fall under provincial retail business holiday acts, such as tourist destinations and many restaurants.

Both in the US and Canada, Labour Day is a day inspired by union efforts to improve the rights of workers. For our US readers interested in learning more about the origins of Labour Day in Canada, I recommend this Canada’s History article.

For more information about Overtime and Statutory Holidays see my post on this topic here.

Transgender Rights and Employer Responsibilities

Trans rights have been in the news a lot lately. During his eventful tenure, President Trump has eroded existing protections for transgendered individuals in the United States. This winter he removed protections for transgendered students in public schools that allowed them to use the bathroom of their gender expression, and not their physical sex. At the end of July, he announced, via Twitter, that transgender individuals would not be permitted in the US military in any capacity.

Rights for Transgendered People in Canada

Photo Credit - Cait's Cafe, Goderich ON

Photo Credit – Cait’s Cafe, Goderich ON

While such protections have been reversing south of the border, protections and recognition of trans-rights in Canada continue to increase. In June 2017, the federal government passed Bill C-16, which added “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to the hate crimes and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. Notably, every province and territory already had these protections in their respective Human Rights legislation, so this move by the feds closes the loop. Indeed, the pioneering Northwest Territories has had gender expression protections in place since 2002!  

Comments in opposition to the Bill included concerns over being penalized criminally for misusing gender neutral pronouns – this is not illegal – and that the Bill would allow those with male genitalia access to female only spaces, possibly endangering women.  This concern has never been supported by evidence, and if anything transgender people face the greatest risk of violence and harassment in sex-segregated spaces.

Supporting Transgendered Employees

Canadian employers are expected to making workplaces safe for trans-people. Areas to consider include:

  • Ensuring the availability of a safe and comfortable washroom;
  • Removing barriers with respect to employer forms or IDs that collect information on sex, and have only gender binary options (M or F);
  • Reviewing content of background checks to ensure they do not “out” employees who have undergone a gender transition;
  • Reviewing uniforms or dress codes policies, although by now, employers are hopefully aware that any sex-based difference in dress code must be legitimately linked to the requirements of the job. If this cannot be shown (it’s unlikely it can), then the dress code is discriminatory anyway.

In all circumstances employers need to be sensitive to their employees safety, and take care to not discriminate against employees who identify as non-binary.

Transgendered Policies

The Ontario Public Service set a good example in 2016 when it instituted a new Gender Identity Policy. This policy limited circumstances in which biological “sex” information could be collected, and instead asks employees about their “gender identity” when necessary. Three options are given with respect to gender identity for display on employee IDs M, F and X for those employees who are trans, identify as non-binary or simply prefer not to say.

Employers should take a look at their policies and practices to ensure that they are not unwittingly discriminating against current or potential employees. If you need help understanding your obligations, or overhauling your practices, we would be pleased to assist.  

PHIPA Fines in the Workplace

Photo Credit - Brandon Morgan

Photo Credit – Brandon Morgan

This spring the largest penalty to date was issued under Ontario’s Personal Health Information Protection Act (“PHIPA”). A social work student was convicted of accessing personal health information without authorization, and ordered pay a $20,000 fine and a $5,000 victim fine surcharge after pleading guilty to “willfully accessing the personal health information of five individuals.”

The breach took place in Goderich, Ontario’s prettiest town, where the student was completing a placement with a family health team. The student also admitted that she had accessed the personal health information of 139 individuals, including that of her family, friends, local politicians and the staff of the clinic. No doubt she had an interesting time doing so, but this fine sends a strong message that employees must keep their curiosity in check. Previous fines include two in the amount of $2,505, which were issued 2016 to two hospital workers in connection with breaches of former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s health information during his cancer treatment.

In our digitizing and digitized workplace privacy is always a hot topic, but privacy laws in Canada remain spotty. Currently broad privacy legislation only applies to the federal sector workplaces (banks, tele-com, shipping, mail etc.) via the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. In Ontario, health information is governed by PHIPA, but most other workplace related information is not subject to any regulation.

Despite the lack of clear legislative guidance in many arenas, employers should have privacy policies in place with respect to private employee and customer information. Policies should also specify consequences in the case of a privacy breach, or inappropriate employee snooping. Remember, there is now a common law tort of invasion of privacy, “intrusion upon seclusion,”  and clear policies and appropriate employee training will go a long way in protecting employers from the potential for vicarious liability.

As always, a balance must be struck between an organization’s need to collect, use and disclose personal information and an individual’s right to privacy.

Examples of good practices are:

  • Designating one person as responsible for personal information
  • Clearly identifying the purpose for the collection of information
  • Obtaining consent before information is collected
  • Collecting only necessary information
  • Disclosing and retaining information only as necessary
  • Employees must be permitted to access their own information

Millennial employees, who have grown up with social media, may have a different conception of privacy than that expected by the culture of the organization. Clear communication, and documentation, around what is expected is crucial.  

At SpringLaw, we regularly advise on privacy, technology and how to make workplaces work for everybody. If you think your workplace might need a privacy overhaul, or you just need some general advice, give us a call.

 

Pot in the Workplace

Photo Credit - Get Budding on Unsplash

Photo Credit – Get Budding on Unsplash

Marijuana has been legal for medical use since 1999. As you undoubtedly know, the Trudeau government has tabled legislation that would expand legal use to the recreational sphere. Employers need to be prepared for how the potential legalization of recreational marijuana will impact the workplace.

Background on the Bill

Here’s a little background on the Liberal Bill – Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, was introduced by Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould (she’s from Vancouver) in April. In June it passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The Committee is expected to begin hearings on the Bill in September.  Anyone wishing to participate in the process can make a submission to the Committee.

The Bill would allow for legal possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis by those 18 and older. Individuals will also be allowed to grow up to four cannabis plants in their homes, though these must be under one metre tall.  Because sale and distribution of marijuana will now be regulated, anything to do with illegal marijuana will remain illegal.

Impact in the Workplace

So what will this all mean for the workplace? Many employers will already be familiar with the need to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace, where an employee uses it to treat an illness or injury falling under the definition of disability in the Human Rights Code.

An addiction to marijuana can also fall under the definition of disability and require accommodation. This does not mean that employers must permit employees to be impaired by marijuana while at work – accommodation must always be balanced with safety, and is required only up to the point of undue hardship.

Practically speaking, employers need to be prepared to handle the presence of marijuana in the workplace. Employers should make themselves aware of the signs of marijuana impairment. Employees have never had the right to work while impaired, and the Cannabis Act won’t change that. Workplace policies may need to be amended. For example if a workplace policy prohibits employees from drinking alcohol on the job or at lunch, it will also need to prohibit them from using cannabis during work hours or on breaks. On the flip side, policies that prohibit recreational marijuana use, due to its illegality, will need to be updated.  

Monitoring Marijuana in the Workplace

Marijuana impairment can be difficult to detect, especially with the rise in popularity of odourless edibles.

Along with Bill C-45 came Bill C-46, which would change impaired driving laws in preparation for the legalization of marijuana. Testing for impairment by marijuana is tricky, as drugs metabolize differently from alcohol, and can remain detectable in the body long after the effects have passed. This is one of the reasons why the caselaw tends to treat the detection of drug and alcohol impairment differently. Bill C-46 would give peace officers the power to demand a bodily sample from drivers suspected of impairment.

I will address the nexus between recent caselaw on random drug testing in the workplace and the legalization of marijuana in a later post, as it’s sure to be a hot topic post July 1, 2018, the date Trudeau would like the new legislation to be in place.

Bill 148 Fair Workplaces Changes: Unionized Workplaces

Over the last several weeks I’ve laid out some of the changes that will affect workplaces governed by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). In this post I’ll touch on how Bill 148 proposes to change the legislation that governs the business of unions, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA). Like the proposed changes to the ESA, the overall tone of these changes is pro employee/union.

Photo Credit - John Salvino

Photo Credit – John Salvino

Certification Process

Many of the changes involve the certification process, which is the process by which a workplace or group of workers becomes unionized. Certifications can be a shifty business, and historically both employers and employee organizers have been known to play dirty, or skirt the rules. The proposed amendments aim to combat some of these issues. Here are some of the proposed changes:

  • Under the revised LRA the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) would be able to order the employer to provide the union with a list of employee names and contact information, where the union can demonstrate that at least 20% of the organization’s employees are already members of the union. Having names and contact information would make the certification process easier for the Union;
  • Following certification, first contract arbitration would be streamlined and include a mediation requirement;
  • Certification in the temporary help agency industry, the building services sector and home care and community services industry would be “card-based.” Card-based certification, whereby employees express their wish to join the union by signing a card, is favoured by unions. In vote-based certification, employees sign a card and then a secret vote is held. Unions have argued that the time in between the signing of the card and the vote gives employers an opportunity to coerce employees into voting against unionization;
  • Under the proposed amendments, unions would be more easily able to certify where the employer engages in misconduct that contravenes the LRA;
  • The OLRB would have the power to conduct certification votes electronically and by telephone;
  • Labour Relations Officers would be authorized to give directions regarding the voting process to assure neutrality; and
  • Employers would not be able to discipline or discharge (without just cause) any unionized employee during the period in between certification and conclusion of the first contract.

Discipline/Discharge Freeze

Similar to the freeze during the negotiation of the first contract, employers will also not be able to discipline or discharge (without just cause) any unionized employee between the date at which the employees are in a legal strike or lockout position and the execution of the new collective agreement. Most collective agreements contain “just cause” protection, that does not allow employers to terminate employees but for “just cause.” This change extends that protection to periods where there is no collective agreement in force.

Successor Rights in Building Services

An interesting change relates to the extension of successor rights to instances where building services are re-tendered. Building services are services such as cleaning, food and security services. The change will make it easier for unions to retain bargaining units when work is re-tendered and a new provider chosen. For example, if unionized staff provide the security services at a building, when the security services contract is retendered any existing bargaining rights and collective agreements applying to the previous security staff will transfer to the new provider of those services. This could temper service providers, who do not have unionized employees from bidding on work in buildings with existing union relationships.

Structure of Bargaining Units

The proposed legislation would allow the OLRB to change the structure of bargaining units where one employer has multiple bargaining units, all within the same union.

In order for the OLRB to review and potentially consolidate bargaining units, the following conditions must be met:

  • The application requesting the review is made at the time of the certification application, or within the subsequent three months;
  • No collective agreement can have been entered into yet; and
  • The trade union certified, already represents employees of that employer in another bargaining unit.

Upon application, and if the above conditions are met, the OLRB would have the power to consolidate bargaining units, amend the description of the bargaining unit, direct which collective agreement will apply, with or without modification, and amend the collective agreement in order to ensure the consolidation works in practice.

The impact of this change will likely be that the OLRB will more easily certify small and fragmented bargaining units, which previously would not have been appropriate candidates for certification.

Notably, these new powers would not apply to the construction industry.

Return to Work from Strike

This proposed change would remove the six-month limitation under which striking employees can apply to return to work. Employers will be required to reinstate employees at the conclusion of lawful strike or lockout and employees will have access to arbitration if there is any refusal to reinstate an employee.

Maximum fines under the LRA would increase to $5,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations (up from the current $2,000 for individuals and $25,000 for organizations).

This concludes my series on Bill 148 for now. As always we will keep you posted as to what happens through the public consultation process and when the legislature gets back to work after the summer break.

 

Bill 148 Fair Workplaces Changes:  Scheduling, Leaves and Vacation

Photo Credit - Kazuend

Photo Credit – Kazuend

This is the third post in my series about the proposed Bill 148 legislative changes. In this post I discuss changes related to scheduling, leaves and vacations.   

Under the proposed changes employees will have the right to increased workplace flexibility and increased leave entitlements. Let’s take a look at the breakdown of these expected changes.

Scheduling

After three months of continuous employment, an employee can request a schedule or location change without fear of reprisal. If the employer wants to deny the request, they are required to provide reasons for the denial. A discussion of the request with the employee is mandated in any case.

Vacation Entitlement

Under the current Employment Standards Act, 2000 employees are entitled to a minimum of two weeks vacation, regardless of seniority. Bill 148 would amend this vacation entitlement provision to increase entitlement to three weeks for employees with five or more years of service to the employer.

Leaves of Absence

The Bill proposes increased entitlements to various forms of leave. Unpaid family medical leave would be increased from up to eight weeks in a 26-week period, to 27 weeks in 52 week period.

A proposed new section of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 would establish an unpaid leave of up to 104 weeks in the event of the death of a child. Under the current version of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 the employee’s entitlement to leave ends, rather harshly, at the end of the week in which the child dies.

The current 52 week entitlement to leave for the crime related disappearance of a child would also increase to 104 weeks. Presently there is a 104 week entitlement where a child dies as a result of a crime.

Personal Emergency Leave

Under the current version of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, personal emergency leave is required to be provided only by employers with 50 or more employees. The changes proposed by Bill 148 would make this leave available to all employees, regardless of employer size. The leave entitlement would include the first two days of the present ten day entitlement be paid days.

Personal emergency leaves can only be taken for a prescribed list of reasons. These include death, illness, injury, or medical emergency related to the individual, an immediate family member, or a dependant family member. The Bill would expand the current list of reasons to include the individual or a family member experiencing sexual or domestic violence, or the threat of sexual or domestic violence.

While employers can ask for evidence to support an employee’s personal emergency leave, they will not be permitted to require a certificate from a qualified health practitioner.

Public Holidays

Under the proposed amendments, Family Day, as an official public holiday, will move from O. Reg 185/01 to be included under the definition of Public Holiday in the Employment Standards Act, 2000. It will continue to fall on the third Monday in February. The rules about public holiday pay are also proposed to change with respect to how the pay is calculated, and with respect to the substitution of a different day off for the public holiday.

In my next post I will cover more of the proposed changes, including those related to unionized or union vulnerable workplaces.

Bill 148 Fair Workplaces Changes: Wages

Photo Credit - Fabian Blank

Photo Credit – Fabian Blank

Last week I posted about Bill 148. In this post I will discuss some specifics of the proposed changes related to pay. The Bill proposes several changes that will affect how much employees get paid.

Minimum Wage

Perhaps the most wide sweeping change will be the proposed increases to Ontario’s minimum wage. General minimum wage is currently $11.40 per hour and there are different minimum wages for different classes of workers, such as students and servers. Bill 148 proposes increasing the general minimum wage to $14.00 per hour on January 1, 2018, and then to $15.00 on January 1, 2019, followed by annual increases at the rate of inflation.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Pay rates will also change based on the equal pay for equal work provision of the Bill. These will affect pay for those in more precarious employment positions such as temporary, casual and seasonal employees if they are doing the same job as full-time employees. The same thing goes for employees from temporary help agencies performing the same job as permanent employees at the agencies’ client company.

Practically this means that employees will be able to request a review of their wages if they believe they are being paid differently than full-time or permanent employees. Employers will be required to respond to requests for pay review either with a pay adjustment, or an explanation for the difference. Pay differences will be acceptable if they are based on relevant factors such as seniority, or if pay is determined by another metric such as quantity of production. Reducing the rates of regular employees to bring everyone in line will not be a legal way to comply with this proposed section.

Overtime Pay

This change will apply where an employer has one employee with two different jobs, and where the rates of pay for the two jobs are different. The hours worked in both jobs will be counted towards total weekly hours with respect to the overtime threshold. So for example, let’s say Barb is a pizza delivery person, and also sometimes works in the kitchen. She gets paid a different rate for each job. If Barb works 30 hours in the kitchen and 20 hours delivering pizza she will be entitled to overtime pay for any hour above the threshold, based on the combined hours in both of her jobs. She will be entitled to pay at one and one-half times the regular rate for the work performed during the overtime hours. This change could mean more money going towards wages for small businesses who have employees wearing many hats.

Scheduling

The new scheduling provisions call for minimum pay for shifts under three hours, minimum pay for being on call, and the right to three hours of pay if a shift is cut short or canceled without 48 hours notice. In all of these situations employers will be required to pay the employee for a minimum of three hours, even if they were on call and not called in, were called in for less than three hours, were scheduled for a shift of less than three hours, or had their shift cut short.

Notice Pay for Temporary Help Agency Workers

Employers who hire temps for assignments of three months or more will be required to provide them with one week’s notice or pay in lieu if the assignment is terminated before the end of the estimated term. There is an allowance for mitigation, where notice will not be required if the employee if offered another assignment, lasting at least one week.

I will discuss Scheduling, Leaves & Vacations in my next post.

Introduction and Economic Viability of Bill 148

Photo Credit - Viktor Forgacs on Unsplash

Photo Credit – Viktor Forgacs on Unsplash

I posted in May about upcoming reforms to Ontario’s workplace laws and you’ve likely heard other rumblings in the employment and HR world about Bill 148, known as the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017. Early in June the first reading of the Bill was carried, the second reading discharged and the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. The Committee is now tasked with examining the economic impact of the proposed changes, something that may be on many employers’ minds. The Committee will be holding public consultations across the province during the month of July. Those interested in participating in the process can find more details here.

What has many employers concerned is that the changes proposed by the Bill largely favour employees. Premier Wynne has said that the changes are intended to address the new realities of working in Ontario brought on by technology, increased automation and the rise in precarious contract, freelance and part-time work. Critics think that the workplace changes could decrease the attractiveness of Ontario to businesses looking to expand operations or set up shop. For example the Ontario government reports that should the Bill pass, more than a quarter of Ontario workers will receive a pay hike due to the increase to the minimum wage.

On June 7 Alberta passed new workplace legislation, similarly designed to make workplaces more employee friendly. It will be interesting to watch how these changes play out. But are economic growth and improved rights for employees mutually exclusive? Premier Wynne thinks not. I guess it depends what side of the fence you sit on.

Ontario lawmakers are on summer recess until September 8, with January 1, 2018 being the proposed effective date for most amendments it’s expected that the Bill will be finalized some time this fall.  

In the next series of posts I will address the specifics of the Bill and what changes will mean for Ontario workplaces.

LexBlog