Free Whitepaper
Download our free report, “Be Ready for Bill 168” and get your company ready to be compliant before June 15, 2010.
Posts Tagged ‘Legislation’
-
30 Second HR: 5 Things to Know about Bill 168
0 -
5 Things to Know about Bill 168
You might not have heard about Bill 168 yet, but businesses in Ontario will be hearing a lot about this amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act in 2010. The Bill, which just received Royal Assent and will go into law on June 15th, defines and addresses workplace violence and harassment. Though many of us haven’t experience violence in the workplace, it did account for 17% of violence in Canada in 2004.
This new law will give businesses (with more than 5 employees) a few tasks to complete in order to be compliant. So here are the top 5 things Employers need to know about Bill 168:
- Definition: with the bill comes formal definition of workplace violence and harassment, which gives the OHSA some teeth on the subject. Implication: Employers will need OHSA compliant policies, have them posted and formally reviewed at least annually.
- Assess the Risk: Employers will need to conduct risk assessments for violence and harassment in the workplace, share the results with the Joint H&S committee, and re-assess “as often as is necessary.” Implication: This is paperwork you definitely want in the office to protect your business in the future.
- You need a program to measure and control risks, a published process to request immediate assistance, report and investigate incidents or complaints in the workplace. Implication: Employers need to document how they will monitor and handle risks and incidents, and of course follow the program in the event of violence or harassment.
- Precautions: Become educated about domestic violence, and able to recognize the signs, and learn appropriate ways to help and respond. This applies to any place an employee works, except in their personal homes though you probably need to pay attention. Implication: Employers cannot turn a blind-eye to any warning signs. Note: this part of the Bill is a little murky, so its an area we’ll be watching closely.
- Inform: Employers will need to inform and instruct employees about the policy, program, and provide information related to a risk of violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour. Implication: Once the policy and program are ready to be implemented, get the staff together to inform and discuss.
Download our Whitepaper
We’ve assembled an in-depth whitepaper reviewing Bill 168, and included a checklist and recommendations so your company can quickly become compliant. Click to download
-
Resignation vs. Termination Notice
Recently, a client contacted me with the following question:
“If an employee has provided 2 ½ months notice for resignation but we don’t require (or want) him here for more than two weeks – how do we handle it legally?”
The answer is that it depends on the employee’s service with the company but it is the lesser of the resignation notice or the termination pay that would be owed under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 minimums. For example, if the employee has 2 years of service, you would owe 2 weeks pay under Employment Standards (rather than 2 ½ months) because in essence you are terminating his employment (see section 56 subsection (1)(a) of the Act). However, if the employee has 10 years of service, you may be obligated to pay the 2 ½ months (or continue to have the employee work for this period of time). If severance is applicable, then the employee would be entitled to 8 weeks notice and 10 weeks of severance. Therefore, the 2 ½ months of resignation notice would be less. If severance is not applicable, then the employee would be entitled to 8 weeks notice only which would be less than the resignation notice of 2 ½ months. You would be terminating his employment and paying (or having him work) the 8 weeks of notice.
So, the next time you have an employee submit a resignation letter with a significant notice period, double check his/her service date!
-
Employers and the Cellphone Ban: Who pays for the fine?
The cellphone ban has been in effect in Ontario for little over a month now, and maybe its just me but I’ve had a lot less road rage. Drivers seem to be more attentive, and those chatting on their cellphones sure are getting a lot of dirty looks – this is when they pay attention to the road around them.
We’ve gotten a lot of traffic on our post: “5 Responses Employers Should Do for the Cellphone Ban” where we discussed updating policies, signing agreements, providing hands-free devices, etc. So we wanted to follow-up with and discuss some of the consequences of failing to comply with the ban, and in particular take a look at the employer/employee dynamic adding to the complexity of “who pays.”
Who pays for an accident or property damage where your employee/driver was on a cellphone?
Well your insurance company isn’t going to be too happy with this scenario, particularly if you haven’t taken any steps to address cellphone usage with your employee. The insurance company is likely not to pay for the accident, and if they do your premiums are going to get hit hard. Secondly any time loss as a result of injury and/or court time will be hitting your bottom line as well.
Since this legislation is still new and not yet tested out in the courts, answers to all the scenarios are still unclear. In particular, its not clear if accidents will be covered by WSIB if an employee is driving the vehicle, talking on the phone, while on a work assignment at the time of the incident.
So play it safe, stress the importance of safe and legal driving practices. Provide hands-free devices, update your policies and require signatures from your employees as proof they understand the policy and will perform in accordance.
-
Employment Accessibility Standard Coming to Ontario
The recently released Final Proposed Employment Accessibility Standard for the AODA will have a significant impact on every employer in Ontario. The goal of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) is to make Ontario accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, to be achieved by
“developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025.”
The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Ontario Regulation 429/07 was the first standard to become law, on January 1, 2008.
The AODA is the first law of it’s kind in Canada and is similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US. Though not yet law, if adopted in the current form, the act will have a significant impact on every employment related practice from recruitment to termination.
-
The Rules for Wrongful Dismissal Claims are Changing
Over the past few years I’ve read many articles regarding the inability of the average person to receive justice in the Canadian Courts due to the tremendous expense and risks associated with actually pursuing legal action; regardless of the merits of the case. This is no less a factor in the area of wrongful dismissal.
Most lawyers are reluctant to work on a “contingency basis” and since terminated employees are normally out of work and reluctant to commit the funds necessary to conduct a wrongful dismissal suit, many cases are not initiated, regardless of the facts. The increased potential for legal action against employers will likely change significantly as a result of the Provincial Government’s efforts at improving the average individual’s access to justice.
On Jan. 1, 2010, the most dramatic changes to the rules of court since 1985 will be implemented. These rules will disable three of the most valuable weapons in employers’ litigation arsenal– costs, complexity and delay. This is according to a recent article by Howard Levitt in the Financial Post.
A blog by:
