To make a case of discrimination on the basis of sex or family status related to breastfeeding an applicant must provide evidence to establish that returning to work is incompatible with breastfeeding, according to the Federal Court of Appeal in Flatt v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 250. Such evidence could address, for example, the particular needs or medical condition of a child requiring breastfeeding. In this case, the court dismissed the mother’s application for judicial review of the dismissal of her grievance (concerning the refusal of her telework proposal), finding that it was a personal choice of the applicant to continue breastfeeding during working hours and not a legal obligation toward the child under her care. The court left the door open for future discrimination claims, however, and concluded by stressing that the decision should not be understood as trivializing breastfeeding, but rather is “about the difficulties of balancing motherhood and career…. and about balancing the rights of mothers and…employers having regard to the basic principle that one must be at work to get paid.” (para.38)

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79 has generated some buzz in the labour law community, both for its analysis concerning the distinctions between employees, dependent, and independent contractors, and for the fact that the court found 26 months’ notice was reasonable in the circumstances (long term, loyal, and aging employees and an employer with “a history of flaunting its contractual obligations to provide reasonable notice of termination” - Law of Work blog post). These articles discuss the decision: A "Dependent Contractor" Got What…?? - BLG Is Twenty-Six the new Twenty-Four? Taking the 'Cap' off the Limit on Reasonable Notice – Labour Pains

The court declined to quash the decision of an arbitrator upholding the automatic dismissal of an employee who admitted to stealing electrical tape in Unifor, Local 3003 v. New Flyer Industries Canada ULC, 2016 MBQB 23, despite evidence that the employer breached a provision of the collective agreement requiring that the employee be offered Union representation at any investigation that might result in discipline. The employee was stopped and searched while exiting work. He admitted to the theft then and again later once he had union representation. The court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that the discipline imposed was merely voidable and not void ab initio.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 500 v Winnipeg (City), 2015 CanLII 90546 (MB LA) – the arbitrator dismissed a City employee’s grievance concerning the payment of double overtime for a double call out occurring after two short overtime periods, which the union argued denied the employee the requisite 8-hour break. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 500 v Winnipeg (City), 2015 CanLII 85555 (MB LA) – the arbitrator upheld a 10-day suspension without pay imposed on a City foreman who publically accused a junior employee of deliberately killing a dog while operating a sand spreader. The discipline, though harsh, was not excessive given the grievor’s prior discipline history and the fact that, despite training, he had not developed an understanding of the importance of treating fellow employees, including subordinates, respectfully.

Federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, passed second reading in the senate on January 27, 2016 and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. The bill is the latest iteration of the Senate’s effort to codify the use of genetic information. The blog post It’s in our DNA: Bill S-201 and Genetic Discrimination discusses the implications for employers. The NDP used their second spot in the private members’ lottery to introduce Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) on February 25, 2016. The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to make it an offence for employers to hire replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. Similar anti-scab legislation is already in place in BC and Quebec. Ontario Ontario Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015, received royal assent on March 8, 2016. Among other things, it amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require employers to implement specific workplace harassment policies and programs and to ensure that incidents and complaints of workplace harassment are appropriately investigated. For further details see the Slaw post: Protection Against Sexual Harassment Now Covered Under OHSA. Ontario is following Manitoba’s lead in proposing legislation giving victims of domestic violence job protected leave. Bill 177, Domestic and Sexual Violence Workplace Leave, Accommodation and Training Act, 2016), received second reading on March 10, 2016 and is currently before standing committee. This Cassels Brock article discusses Manitoba’s recently passed legislation.

Top 10 Employment Law Basics for First-Time Employers in Manitoba – this TDS publication provides a checklist and summary of Manitoba employment law impacting provincially-regulated employers. Changes in the Criminal Code: Employee rights in a time of legal chaos – this First Reference Talks article addresses how employers should deal with uncertainty in the laws regarding physician assisted suicide and medical marijuana. 2015 In Review: Developments In Canadian Labour And Employment Law (Stringer LLP) and Legal Trends 2016: Employment & Labour (Blakes) – these articles highlight recent developments and forecast future trends in labour and employment law. The right to strike: Supreme Court’s labour trilogy has wide ranging impacts – this Lexpert article discusses the long term impact of last year’s SCC labour trilogy enshrining the right to strike as an “indispensable component” of collective bargaining. Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy Position on Gender-Specific Dress Codes – this Slaw post references the recently announced OHRC policy on gender specific dress codes (e.g. requiring women to wear sexualized clothing in restaurant work). Employee should have been honest about pregnancy: tribunal – this Legal Feeds post discusses Opp v. Mackoff Law Corporation and another, 2016 BCHRT 13, a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing the discrimination complaint of a law firm employee who alleged that her employment was terminated due to a pregnancy. The employer argued that the recently hired employee lied concerning when she became pregnant, thereby destroying the firm’s confidence in how she might behave in the future should her performance be challenged.

The MBA’s Labour and Employment Law section is hosting a lunch session on Employment Security Checks on April 25, 2016, in the Law Society classroom. Karlee Blatz of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority will discuss adult abuse registry checks, criminal record checks, and privacy issues, among other things.

The ADR Institute of Manitoba is offering a 40-hour National Introductory Arbitration Course from April 26 – May 4, 2016, in Winnipeg. The comprehensive program will cover arbitration process and applications, conducting arbitration hearings, and writing awards. For further details see the daily schedule and registration form. In addition, the ADR Institute of Canada board is collaborating with ADRIM to present 3 Sessions over a 3-Course Dinner, a mini dispute resolution conference, on April 14, 2016. Panelists will address three topics over the course of the evening: Managing Conflict in Organizations, Commercial Arbitration, and The Restorative Justice Act.

The Winnipeg version of Labour Law Online’s 2016 Accommodation Law Conference will take place April 13-14, 2016 at the Hotel Fort Garry. The conference will explore the latest legal breakthroughs in the duty to accommodate and their impact on unionized workplaces in Canada.