|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Law Society of Manitoba Professional Education and Competence |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
eLaw Labour and Employment Law Update November 2015
In This Issue | Payment of Two Premiums Not Necessarily Pyramiding: MBCA | Enforcing a Statutory Right to Overtime Pay Through Court Action: MBCA | Discouraging Unmeritorious Wrongful Dismissal Claims: MBQB | Terminating Adjudication on Settlement Offers: MBHR | Accommodating Addictions – A Cautionary Tale for Employers: MBHR | Update on Temporary Foreign Worker Regime | Recommended Reading | 2015 Isaac Pitblado Lectures | Continuing Professional Development: LSM | Introductory Arbitration Course | 16th Annual Administrative Law, Labour and Employment Law Conference: CBA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Payment of Two Premiums Not Necessarily Pyramiding: MBCA
In Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc v Public Service, 2015 MBCA 94, the Court of Appeal reinstated an arbitrator’s finding that paying both weekend and shift premiums to employees working the evening/night weekend shift was not pyramiding contrary to the parties’ collective agreement, since the two premiums served different purposes. The arbitrator’s finding was reasonable, said the court, and there was no need for the application judge to go further to analyze whether this rendered the provisions of the collective agreement prohibiting pyramiding meaningless. The court stressed the importance of respecting the privileged position of the arbitrator to decide the interpretative question lying at the root of the grievances.
|
|
|
|
Enforcing a Statutory Right to Overtime Pay Through Court Action: MBCA
“There is conflicting appellate authority as to whether an employment standard created by statute becomes an implied term of an employment contract that can be enforced by a civil action,” according to the Court of Appeal in Hutlet v 4093887 Canada Ltd et al, 2015 MBCA 82, and “(i)t is not plain and obvious that an employee’s only remedy for non-payment of overtime wages is the administrative regime created by (The Employment Standards) Code.” The court dismissed the employers’ appeal of the dismissal of their motion to strike the employee’s claim for overtime wages.
|
|
|
|
Discouraging Unmeritorious Wrongful Dismissal Claims: MBQB
The court dismissed the wrongful dismissal action of a “dishonest and insubordinate” school principal in Saikaley v. Oxford House, 2015 MBQB 162, finding that there was overwhelming evidence he had been terminated for just cause. The court also ordered higher than usual costs against the self-represented litigant, sending the message that “unmeritorious claims of this nature can have meaningful cost consequences and are not to be encouraged.” (para. 24)
|
|
|
|
Terminating Adjudication on Settlement Offers: MBHR
In Collette v St. Adolphe Personal Care Home Inc, 2015 MBHR 4, another decision concerning the relatively new section on settlement offers under The Human Rights Code, the adjudicator considered two possible interpretations of s. 37.1(2). The section obliges the adjudicator to terminate adjudication if a complainant rejects a settlement offer that the adjudicator considers to be reasonable, but doesn’t clarify the order in which those requirements must be met. The adjudicator found he was only required to terminate the adjudication if the complainant rejected the offer after the adjudicator determined it was reasonable. In addition, the complainant must be given a reasonable time to accept or reject the offer, in this case, 35 days from the receipt of the reasons for decision or the termination of any judicial review, whichever is later.
|
|
|
|
Accommodating Addictions – A Cautionary Tale for Employers: MBHR
As noted in the penultimate paragraph of the Human Rights Board of Adjudication decision in Horrocks v. Northern Regional Health Authority, 2015 MBHR 3, this case raises “many interesting and important issues about an employer’s duty to accommodate an employee who has an addiction-related disability both generally and in the context of an employment relationship which is governed by a collective agreement.” (para. 279) The board found that the employer, a personal care home, had satisfied neither the procedural nor the substantive components of the duty to accommodate the alcohol addiction of the complainant employee, a health care aide. The employer was ordered to reinstate the employee; to compensate her for more than three years of lost wages; to pay $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect; and to develop a reasonable accommodation policy within three months.
|
|
|
|
Update on Temporary Foreign Worker Regime
The federal government has published new regulations introducing an administrative monetary penalty regime under which non-compliant employers of temporary foreign workers face a range of penalties corresponding to varying degrees of non-compliance. The amendments come into force on December 1, 2015 and will apply to any violations that occur on or after that date. For further details see the regulatory impact analysis statement attached to the regulation and this Fasken Martineau article.
|
|
|
|
Recommended Reading
|
|
|
2015 Isaac Pitblado Lectures
The 2015 Isaac Pitblado Lectures will explore how changing notions of property and ownership are affecting legal practice in such diverse areas as intellectual property, digital assets, life leases, and testamentary dispositions. The lectures take place November 6-7, 2015, at the Fort Garry Hotel. See the program agenda and registration form for further details.
|
|
|
|
Continuing Professional Development: LSM
|
|
|
Introductory Arbitration Course
|
|
|
16th Annual Administrative Law, Labour and Employment Law Conference: CBA
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are receiving this email in accordance with the Law Society's mandate to uphold and protect the public interest in the delivery of legal services with competence, integrity and independence and to further your opportunities to ensure compliance with the mandatory continuing professional development requirements set out in Law Society Rule 2.81.1(8). |
|
|
|
|
|
www.lawsociety.mb.ca/publications/elaw
The Law Society of Manitoba
219 Kennedy St
Winnipeg MB R3C 1S8
|
|
|
|
|
|