Saskatchewan Becomes Second Province to Enact Late-Night Retail Safety Regulations

Posted by Andrew Carricato on November 13, 2012

Saskatchewan has adopted new regulations relating to the safety of workers who are employed to work at late-night retail premises. The changes come following the death of Jimmy Wiebe, a gas station clerk who was shot and killed during a robbery at a gas station in June 2011, and increasing pressure from labour groups to strengthen Occupational Health and Safety laws to protect workers against violence.

The new regulations will come into force on January 1, 2013, making Saskatchewan only the second Canadian province to adopt specific regulations intended to protect late-night retail employees. These specific provisions are in addition to existing general obligations to create workplace violence policies, programs, and working alone obligations.

Continue Reading

Biased Workplace Investigation Warrants Punitive Damages, says Alberta Court of Appeal

Posted by Sonia Regenbogen on February 23, 2012

It is clear how important it is to conduct a proper workplace investigation.  It is also clear that failing to do so can scuttle an employer’s case for a just cause dismissal, expose an employer to Human Rights Code damages, and, depending on the harm actually suffered, create a risk of aggravated Keays damages as well.

According to a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal, we also now know that an unfair investigation that is biased from the outset can ground an award of punitive damages, which courts reserve for only the most “malicious and high-handed misconduct that offends a court’s sense of decency.”

Continue Reading

Attacking Client Confidentiality: Proposed U.S. Regs May Require Disclosure of Lawyers Used by Employers in Union Drives

Posted by Tim Lawson on October 25, 2011

In the United States, the Labour-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) requires employers and labour relations consultants to report the details of “persuader activities” to the U.S. Department of Labour (DOL).  A consultant engages in “persuader activities” if it is contracted to counter a union organizing drive or collective bargaining effort.  The reporting requirements are intended to bring transparency to the activities of those U.S. consultants who discourage employee organizing drives and engage in so-called “union-busting” activities.

The Current Reporting Requirements and the Exemption for Legal Advice

Currently, U.S. attorneys have very limited reporting requirements under the LMRDA because it contains a broad exemption for legal advice. 

Attorneys are only required to report “persuader activities” if they have direct contact with employees.  For example, attorneys who prepare and actually deliver persuasive material to employees have reporting requirements under the LMRDA.

Continue Reading

When is Your Employee Satisfaction Survey Actually a Workplace Investigation?

Posted by Sonia Regenbogen on October 14, 2011

Winds of investigatory change are blowing through courts and workplaces.  Less then a decade ago, unfounded complaints made against a manager could justify stripping him or her of supervisory duties and bar an action for constructive dismissal.  These employees had no right to know the details of the complaints against them, nor were they entitled to give a response.  Simply put, procedural fairness received little consideration in the non-unionized workplace.

Now, however, with new human rights and occupational health and safety laws that put employers under a duty to investigate discrimination and harassment claims, courts are becoming aware of improper investigations carried out under the guise of other HR functions.

An Ontario court recently ruled on this topic in Chandran v. National Bank of Canada when it held that a senior manager demoted pursuant to an employee satisfaction survey had actually been constructively dismissed because of, among other things, improper workplace investigation procedures.

Continue Reading