Rise of the machines in the workplace

Here Come the Robots

Is your workplace about to be automated? A recent study by McKinsey & Company suggests that about half of the activities (not jobs) carried out by workers could be automated right now with currently available technologies.  The study assessed 2000 work activities across more than 800 occupations, including mortgage brokers and CEOs.  Those are a lot of activities affecting a wide range of occupations.

Not even lawyers are immune from the rise of the machines!  Researchers have shown that algorithms can significantly outperform human judges in predicting whether an accused person will behave, or flee and/or commit a crime while on bail.  

Does this mean that all workers are on the verge of being replaced by robots? Not yet at least.  But it does mean that in nearly every industry, human workers should get comfortable working alongside machines.  

But what are some legal implications for employers and employees?

They Took Our Jobs!

One of the results of automation of job tasks is the changing nature of the job itself.  In some jobs, the automation of administrative or technical tasks can free up workers to focus on the uniquely human and strategic tasks which are most fundamental to the job itself.  For example, at SpringLaw, our lawyers leverage state of the art AI and predictive analytics to conduct legal research, which frees up time to focus on advising clients and devising file and negotiation strategy.  In this sense, the use of technology has changed some of our day to day tasks, but the essential character and essence of our jobs as lawyers have been enhanced.

On the other hand, consider the job of a school bus driver, whose job tasks include driving a school bus, but also include supervising a large group of children.  Suppose the operation of the school bus becomes fully automated, but a trustworthy adult is still required to supervise the children and ensure they do not interfere with the safe operation of the bus.  In this case, the essential character of the job has arguably been changed from driving a bus to supervising children.

When is Automation Constructive Dismissal?

If an employer does not specifically reserve the right to alter an employee’s essential job duties, an employee could argue that there was a fundamental breach of the employment contract and make a claim for constructive dismissal.  If the new role is beyond, below or so completely unrelated to their current role, an employer may be inadvertently setting an employee up for failure in the name of progress.

Jobs and workplaces evolve and employees should expect the inevitable journey of change in today’s workplace. Employers should expect to have to continuously invest in skills training. If, however, there is a contractual agreement to perform a certain role and that role is fundamentally changed, employers are at risk of a constructive dismissal lawsuit.

The simple (but not easy) solution is to terminate the employee without cause and offer up a reasonable termination package. The problem arises when employers try to prove someone is not performing their role or is now incompetent. The threshold for a “with cause” termination is very high in Canada, and odds are it will be cheaper (and certainly more decent) to offer a package and look for a different skill set.

There will no doubt be a long, messy period between the investments in new software and technology to upgrade the workplace systems,  the skill set misalignment, the discussions about what the role should look like, and then the hard questions asked about what next steps should look like.

Simply automating a task is sometimes not so simple. Employers will need to remain mindful of the impact of tech on people and while we don’t think that should stop progress, we do think there are employment law risks that face employers along the way.

Automation is in full swing and is here to stay.  We are happy and ready to answer all of your questions related to employment law and the implementation of technology in your workplace.  

References: Is honesty the best policy?

As kids, we learned that telling the truth was the right thing to do, but ask a lawyer and this golden rule is likely to become a little bit tarnished! However, a recent decision about honesty when providing a former employee with a reference might make us all feel a little better about telling the truth.

Kanak v. Riggin

On January 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in the case of Kanak v. Riggin. In 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the 2017 trial judge’s decision which gave the thumbs up to honesty when it comes to giving employee references.

In this case, Ms. Kanak, a former employee of Mr. Riggin, was offered a job conditional upon a positive reference check. Ms. Kanak gave Mr. Riggin as her reference. When contacted by the new employer, Mr. Riggin was honest with his feedback, which led the new employer to rescind the job offer. Ms. Kanak then sued Mr. Riggin for defamation. She plead that he was motivated to make unflattering statements about her by malice, spite and a desire for revenge.

The Honest Truth

When asked, Mr. Riggin had told the new employer the following about Ms. Kanak:

  • There was a lot of conflict between Ms. Kanak, her supervisor and other employees;
  • Ms. Kanak did not take directions well;
  • Ms. Kanak is narrowly-focused;
  • Ms. Kanak did not handle stress well; and
  • He would not re-hire her.

Mr. Riggin denied being motivated by malice. He stated that he acted in good faith and that his statements were accurate. Notably, while working under Mr. Riggin, Ms. Kanak had consistently received positive performance reviews and merit-based pay increases. She had been laid off, along with other employees, due to the sale of the business and through no fault of her own.

Defamation?

The trial judge found that Mr. Riggin’s statements about Ms. Kanak did amount to defamation but that qualified privilege was a defence.

The legal test for defamation requires that all of the following be established:

  • The words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;
  • That the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and
  • That the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.

While defamation was made out here, defamation in the form of an employment reference attracts no liability because it is a situation of qualified privilege.

On this point, the judge said the following:

The social policy underpinning the protection of employment references in this manner is clear: an employer must be able to give a job reference with candour as to the strengths and weaknesses of an employee, without fear of being sued in defamation for doing so. Without this protection, references would either not be given, or would be given with such edited content as to render them at best unhelpful or at worst misleading to a prospective employer.

Qualified privilege can be defeated, and liability for defamation can arise only where the statements are false AND malicious. The trial judge concluded that Mr. Riggin’s reference was not malicious. Thus the qualified privilege remained intact and Ms. Kanak’s action for defamation failed.

Takeaways

Other than hurt feelings and the potential for being dragged through expensive legal proceedings (admittedly things that can be big deals), employers should feel (mostly) free to be honest when providing references. As long as the employer is truthful and not acting with malice, disgruntled employees will have little legal recourse when given a reference they do not like.

If you’d like to chat about references or the other issues that can arise when employees leave, contact us!  

The Cost of Forcing an Employee to Retire

The Notice periods are trending upwards. One reason for this is that people are not necessarily retiring at 65 anymore, leading employers to struggle with how to exit the older employee for either declining performance reasons (real or perceived) or to simply make room for new talent.

As an example of the high-risk employers face when trying to push out an older worker without a fair package, in Dawe v. Equitable Life Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 3130, the employee was awarded a 30 month notice period.  Mr. Dawe was terminated from his position as Senior Vice President of the Equitable Life Insurance Company at age 62.  Mr. Dawe had worked from Equitable Life and its predecessor company for 37 years. In his last year of work, Mr. Dawe earned a base salary of $249,000 and a STIP and LTIP bonus totalling $379,585. (We will cover the award for this bonus in a future post.)

Notice Periods for Older Workers

24 months is generally seen as the maximum period of common law reasonable notice to which a terminated employee is entitled. However, courts have also always been careful to add that that there is no absolute cap on reasonable notice.  

In the Dawe case, Justice Gordon commented that Mr. Dawe, while perhaps close to retirement age, should have been allowed to retire on his own terms. There were no comparable jobs available to him and he had dedicated the entirety of his working life to Equitable Life. Losing such a senior position at age 62 was tantamount to a forced retirement. While Mr. Dawe only requested a 30 month notice period, Justice Gordon commented that, had he been asked to, he would have awarded him 36 months.

Terminating Older Workers

In our experience, terminations of employees close to retirement are common. Often new management wants fresh blood to shake up how things have been done for years, or employers have stereotypical concerns about older workers keeping up with new technology and systems.

Since 2006, mandatory retirement is no longer legal. We live in an information workforce age where many jobs are not limited by age or a physical decline. Our lifespan and our work lives are longer than they have ever been. How workplaces adjust to this reality remains full of bumps in the road. The need for change management and new talent may be seen to outweigh the price of a notice period payment of an older worker.

The Dawe case shows, however, that the price tag could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Wrapping up someone’s career requires careful planning and communication, and benefits from a shared goal of making it both fair and conducted with dignity.

If you have questions about retirement, notice periods or older workers get in touch! We’d love to chat.

All About Commissions

Employment arrangements with different kinds of compensation are common and can present a lot of questions when it comes to a termination. In this post, we will look at how the law treats commissions.

Notice Pay

Readers of our blog will know by now that when an employee is terminated without cause they are entitled to notice. How much notice will depend on whether or not there is a contract, the age of the employee, the character of the employment, the length of time the employee worked with the employer, etc. We usually talk about notice in terms of number of months.

Notice can be either working notice, where the employee is told that their job will end in a certain number of months and they continue working until that time or pay in lieu of notice, where the employee stops working on the day they are terminated but receives a notice payment representing a certain amount of months of pay. The notice payment can be structured as a lump-sum, one-time payment or as salary continuance, where the employee continues to get paid their regular salary for an amount of time. When an employee is paid commissions, the question of what is their regular salary arises.

Entitlement to Commissions During the Notice Period

Generally, an employee is going to be entitled to notice pay that includes an amount for commissions. Commissions are considered to be “wages” under the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA). Attempting to contract out of paying an employee their full “wages” during the notice period may violate the ESA.  This will especially be the case if the commissions formed an integral part of the employee’s overall compensation. In general, terminated employees must be “kept whole” during the notice period, this includes payment of wages and continuation of other benefits.  The notion of being “kept whole” is the legal way of saying that terminated employees should continue to be compensated as they were when actively at work.

Calculating Commissions During the Notice Period

Given that employees will generally be entitled commissions during the notice period, we are often asked how much they should be? When commissions are based on sales, but an employee is no longer at work making sales, how can the amount of a commission payment be determined? The most common approach is to take an average of the employee’s commissions over the last few years. If commissions are variable based on things like season, then a more logical approach may be to look at figures for specific months in the past year. The employee is entitled to compensation during the notice period that they would have earned had they been at work.

Another issue is the question of commissions earned prior to termination but not yet paid out. In general, terminated employees will be entitled to these.  If you have questions about commissions or other quirky forms of compensation, get in touch!

Costs and Legal Tech

At SpringLaw we love legal tech and consequently, a few recent cost decisions have caught our eye. In both Cass v. 1410088 Ontario Inc. (“Cass”) and Drummond v. The Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. (“Drummond”) justices of the Ontario Superior Court made comments about artificial intelligence and legal research.

The Cass case was a slip and fall in which the defendant prevailed. The plaintiff, who was liable for costs, argued that defendant counsel fees were excessive and unnecessary. One issue raised was a $900 fee for case precedents, which the plaintiff argued, are available for free through CanLII or publicly accessible websites. Justice Whitten, perhaps also a lover of legal tech, agreed. He stated in relation to both the excessive amount of time counsel had spent on legal research, as well as the fee that, “[i]f artificial intelligence sources were employed, no doubt counsel’s preparation time would have been significantly reduced.” The defendant’s claims for disbursements was ultimately reduced from $24,300.67 to $11,404.08.

In Drummond, the defendant objected to the $1,323 claimed for legal research costs incurred using WestLaw. Justice Perell commented that the law is divided regarding whether a disbursement for legal research is a recoverable cost. One view is that legal research tools are simply part of a lawyer’s overhead and not recoverable, another is that they are a reasonable and recoverable disbursement.

Justice Perell’s own view aligns with the latter. In allowing the $1,323 disbursement for legal research he commented that, “computer-assisted legal research is a necessity for the contemporary practice of law and computer assisted legal research is here to stay with further advances in artificial intelligence to be anticipated and to be encouraged.” He further noted that, “computer assisted legal research provides a more comprehensive and more accurate answer to a legal question in shorter time than the conventional research methodologies.”

The message from the bench is clear, lawyers have an obligation to take advantage of the ways in which technology enables us to be more efficient. Neglecting to keep up with the times will cost you!

Top 5 Employment Law Cases of 2018

By: Hilary Page and Lisa Stam

2018 was a whirlwind of statutory changes in the employment law world, which has perhaps overshadowed the judicial developments that have taken place in courts. In today’s post, we turn to all things case law and give our picks for the top 5 employment law cases of 2018.

  1. Amberber v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2018 ONCA 571

This one is likely to make most employment lawyers top cases of 2018 lists. We all love a good termination clause case! The law on what makes a valid “without cause” termination clause seems to change like the weather, but Amberber gives us the latest. Bear with us, here is the clause in question:

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

If you are terminated by IBM other than for cause, IBM will provide you with notice or a separation payment in lieu of notice of termination equal to the greater of (a) one (1) month of your current annual base salary or (b) one week of your current annual base salary, for each completed six months worked from your IBM service reference date to a maximum of twelve (12) months of your annual base salary.

This payment includes any and all termination notice pay, and severance payments you may be entitled to under provincial employment standards legislation and Common Law. Any separation payment will be subject to applicable statutory deductions. In addition, you will be entitled to benefit continuation for the minimum notice period under applicable provincial employment standard legislation.

In the event that the applicable provincial employment standard legislation provides you with superior entitlements upon termination of employment (“statutory entitlements”) than provided for in this offer of employment, IBM shall provide you with your statutory entitlements in substitution for your rights under this offer of employment.

Amberber, an IBM employee with 16 years of service was terminated, in accordance with above language in his contract. He then brought a court case, arguing that the clause was vague and should be deemed unenforceable. The lower court agreed with him. IBM appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, who did not.  Justice Gray wrote:   “In my view, there is no ambiguity. As stated by Laskin J.A. in Chilton v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co. (1997), 1997 CanLII 765 (ON CA), 32 O.R. 161 (C.A.), at p. 169, “[t]he court should not strain to create an ambiguity where none exists.”  In my view, the motion judge strained to create an ambiguity where none exists.”

  1. Watson v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, 2018 ONSC 1066

This case is important because of its #metoo angle. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the Full and Final Release signed by Ms. Watson at the time of her termination did not prevent her from bringing a claim for damages for the sexual harassment she experienced at the hand of her former manager.

The Release, which the employee signed when she was terminated from the Salvation Army after only four months of employment, contained the expected language regarding releasing the employer from ALL claims connected to her employment or the end of her employment. Ms. Watson was paid $10,000 in exchange for executing the release.   

Four years after the termination of her employment, Ms. Watson brought a claim. The defendant manager brought a motion for summary judgment based on the fact that Ms. Watson had executed a release. The Superior Court dismissed the motion stating that the sexual harassment did not arise from the employment relationship and therefore that it was not covered by the release:

“I conclude the Release cannot be considered all inclusive, including the claims herein, as the scope was the employment relationship.  While many of the alleged events occurred at the place of employment and, perhaps, because of the employment, sexual harassment, intimidation and other improper conduct are not connected to employment.”

 

I can’t help but wonder if this case would have been decided differently a few years ago. The #metoo consciousness raising is having wide effect.

  1. Unifor Local 707A v. Suncor Energy Inc., 2018 CanLII 53457

We have blogged about the Suncor Energy drug testing saga in the past. While not exactly a 2018 case, this case saw some movement in 2018 and we think it’s very noteworthy, especially given issues that recreational cannabis legalization is spurring. This is also a good reminder to our American readers of the very different approach Canadian courts take with workplace drug testing generally.

You’ll recall that this long-lived case is all about random drug testing in the workplace. The fact of a safety-sensitive workplace alone is not sufficient justification for random drug testing. Suncor relied on the additional “general problem of substance abuse” as its additional justification. The union challenged this justification. The union prevailed at arbitration, but the arbitration decision was quashed by the Alberta Court of Appeal who ruled that the arbitration panel had made an improper distinction between the bargaining unit in question and the workplace as a whole. In doing so, the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that random drug testing was permissible in safety-sensitive workplaces where there was a general problem with drug and alcohol use.  The union appealed the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. In June 2018, the Supreme Court denied the leave application, so they will not be hearing the case and in late 2018 Unifor dropped the case, deciding not to take it back to arbitration. Suncor, meanwhile, announced that it will begin random drug testing on workers in safety-sensitive positions in January.

The denial of the leave application is significant because it tacitly endorses the Alberta Court of Appeal’s ruling regarding random drug testing. Had the Supreme Court had an issue with it, we expect they would have not denied the application for leave.

Drug testing is an issue we expect to continue to evolve in 2019. We will keep you posted.

  1. A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited, 2018 HRTO 107

Another impactful case this year was that of A.B v. Joe Singer Shoes. This sad case saw the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal award $200,000 in human rights damages for injury to the Applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect harshly denouncing the abuse of power perpetrated by the employer against this long-time employee. The details of this case are sordid and involve multiple sexual assaults and long-term sexual harassment by an employer against the Applicant, an immigrant from Thailand, whose first job upon coming to Canada was working for the personal Respondent at his shoe store. She stayed for almost 30 years and suffered harassment and assaults almost weekly. The Applicant’s version of events was believed over the Respondent’s – though she gave evidence that the Respondent had kept her quiet for years by telling her no one would ever believe her.

Often, we think of HRTO awards as too low to have a significant impact on those who breach the Ontario Human Rights Code. HRTO damages are, after all, not intended to be punitive but compensatory. While the details of this case are extraordinary, and the $200,000 award is still an outlier, this case demonstrates how seriously abuses of power are now being taken.

  1. Roskaft v. RONA Inc., 2018 ONSC 2934

This is another case likely to be popular on the top 2018 lists. Some of the most common and tricky issues we deal with as employment lawyers are what to do when employees get sick. We all know that the employer has a duty to accommodate disability up to the point of undue hardship, but we struggle with when frustration finally kicks in.

In his case, Mr. Roskaft a 13-year Rona employee had been off sick for almost three years when Rona decided to terminate his employment for frustration. They reasoned that Mr. Roskaft’s medical evidence showed that he was permanently disabled and that he was unlikely to be able to return to work within a reasonable period. Mr. Roskaft was, at the time, receiving LTD. Mr. Roskaft brought a wrongful dismissal action.

Ontario Superior Court ruled that while Rona could not rely exclusively on evidence from the insurer, Mr. Roskaft’s continued receipt of LTD and representations to the insurer that he was totally and permanently disabled could allow Rona to reasonably conclude that his contract was frustrated.

This case suggests that continued receipt of LTD may act to tip the balance in frustration cases.

ESA Holiday Musings

Happy Boxing Day everyone! Holidays and vacations are interesting topics for us employment lawyers. We have blogged about Public Holidays under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and in the past. Check out our posts on this topic here.

For workplaces in Ontario, governed by provincial law, there are nine Public Holidays. These are:

  • New Year’s Day
  • Family Day
  • Good Friday
  • Victoria Day
  • Canada Day
  • Labour Day
  • Thanksgiving Day
  • Christmas Day
  • Boxing Day

Working on a Public Holiday

A designation as a public holiday does not mean that employees cannot work on that day. Obviously, lots of people are working and selling us stuff today!

Under the ESA an employee can agree to work on a Public Holiday. If they do so, they can take another day off, which will be paid, or they can be paid premium pay for the Public Holiday worked. Section 73 of the ESA allows retail employees to refuse to work on a Public Holiday or a Sunday, but they do so at the risk of losing hours.

Employees who do not work on Public Holidays generally need to be paid Public Holiday Pay. See our posts on the drama swirling around Public Holiday Pay for more on this topic.

Holidays that are Not Public Holidays

You’ll notice that three of the Public Holiday days listed above fall around this time of year. Many workplaces are shut down around now, for more than these three days. It is certainly not uncommon for offices to be closed from Christmas to January 2. But these extra days off, December 27 – 31, are not Public Holidays.

This raises the question, what is an employee’s entitlement to these unofficial holiday days?

Falling into the same curious category are Easter Monday, Easter Sunday and Civic Holiday. Many employees expect these days off with pay, but employers are not required by the ESA to give them.

This does not mean that employers who have historically provided these days off as paid days can, upon reading this post, take them away. Like any change to the terms of employment, employers must tread carefully or risk constructive dismissal claims, or at the very least, a disgruntled workforce. Generally, some changes can be made upon providing sufficient notice but we recommend getting legal advice about your particular situation before any action is taken.

Get in touch if you’d like to discuss Public Holidays or making changes in your workplace.

Happy Boxing Day everyone!

#Clawbies2018 Nominations

It’s Clawbies time!  We nominate the following blogs for the 2018 Canadian Law Blog Awards. Click here for more details on #Clawbies2018 and click here for a great list of Canadian Law Blogs to add to your reading list.  We blog weekly and get plenty of inspiration and wisdom from our fellow legal blogging community. There are many to choose from, but here are 3 of our favourites:

1) Macleod Law Firm’s Navigating The Employment Law Waters – https://www.macleodlawfirm.ca/employers/blog-2/

The lawyers at Macleod Law are on the ball and quick to provide relevant and timely info in concise and readable posts. They’ve also made the innovative move to put out two different blogs, one for employers and one for employees.

2) Precedent: New Rules of Law and Style – https://lawandstyle.ca/

This is not a new blog, but it remains current, sometimes spicey and always a great, behind-the-scenes alternative to the heavy work side of law. Lawyers are people too.

3) Of Counsel Podcast – https://robichaudlaw.ca/podcast/

Sean Robichaud has managed to interview a very broad and impressive range of lawyers over 2018. He asks insightful questions and gets interesting and relevant information from the guest. Each show leaves us with plenty to think about and inspiration for practice development and the role of lawyers in the current legal environment.

Cannabis at the office holiday party

The season of the office holiday party is upon us! In addition to merriment, this time of year can bring a lot of risk for employers. A new risk this year comes in the form of Prime Minister Trudeau’s legal recreational cannabis and Premier Ford’s relaxed consumption laws. In addition to monitoring intoxication levels from alcohol consumption, employers will now be tasked with monitoring for the added risk of impairment created by cannabis. Employees can now legally step out of the party to enjoy something a little stronger than a post-dinner cigarette!

Social host liability, always a hot blog topic this time of year, now has this added element. Employers, who can be held liable for accidents that happen as a result of overly intoxicated party goers, now need to educate themselves on how to monitor for cannabis impairment or combined alcohol/cannabis impairment.

If this sounds like enough to make you want to institute a dry brunch party, we don’t blame you. The fact is, however, that many employees look forward to the holiday party. It’s also a nice time to meet employees’ families and to say thank you for their hard work and their families support.

What’s a Party Host to Do?

What should employers in the legal cannabis era do? As always, employers need to take precautions to ensure that their parties are safe and that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that everyone behaves appropriately and gets home safe. This can include ensuring that alcohol is served by a licensed bartender, trained to spot impairment and comfortable cutting people off, providing free transportation to and from the event and providing non-alcoholic options and fun “mocktails” so that employees don’t feel social stigma if they chose not to drink. Employers should also be proactive in addressing the potential for the use of cannabis, recognizing that it is legal and social stigma-wise should be on par with drinking alcohol and it may not be appropriate to ban it outright.

Just as we recommend for the workplace, have a member of the management team trained to spot signs of cannabis impairment. This person (lucky them) should be on duty at the party keeping an eye out for impaired guests. Employers should not allow impaired guests to leave the party without a safe way home. Cannabis and alcohol can combine to heighten impairment.

Employer policies should address legal drug and alcohol use, both in the workplace and at employer-sponsored events. Ensure that these policies are followed at the holiday party. Employers and senior management should practice what they preach and should be reminded of the overall tone they will set. While this can be a challenge in flatter organizations where the boss is very young, the negative memory of missteps will long outlast the temporary restraint recommended for the workplace holiday party. But don’t forget to still have fun in the midst of it all!

Delay in Pay Transparency

Throughout the year we have been blogging on the progress of Bill 203, Ontario’s Pay Transparency Act, 2018 (the Act). Check out our posts discussing the Act here and here. As of our last post in May 2018, this Act was set to come into force on January 1, 2019. Well, in the spirit of keeping things interesting, the Ford government has decided that that is not to be.

Bill 57

Bill 57, a Ford government initiative titled the Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018 received Royal Assent in the legislature of Ontario on December 6, 2018. One aspect of this omnibus bill was delaying the commencement of the Act from January 1, 2019 to “a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.” So basically for an unknown amount of time and possibly indefinitely.

The Pay Transparency Act, 2018 would have done the following:

  • Required publicly advertised job postings to include a salary range;
  • Prohibited employers from asking candidates about their past compensation;
  • Prohibited reprisals against employees who discuss or disclose compensation; and
  • Established a reporting framework that would have required employers with 100 or more employees to track, report and post-compensation gaps based on gender and other diversity characteristics.

Bill 57 will also make other changes that will affect workplaces, including more oversight of public sector union bargaining and public sector executive compensation, a review of the WSIB, various pension law changes,  changes to OHIP drug coverage for children and an increase in the employer health tax relief limit.

Bill 47

The Ford government’s Bill 47, the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 also did away with some of the Bill 148 changes to increase pay transparency. Bill 47 will repeal the Equal Pay for Equal Work provision of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 related to equal pay for workers of different employment statutes, as well as the provision requiring the employer to respond in writing when an employee makes an inquiry about their rate of pay.

If you have questions about Bill 57, pay transparency, Bill 47 or anything related to employment standards in Ontario get in touch! We are here to help.

LexBlog