Old Post News | Page 3 of 6 | Integritas Workplace Law

October 17, 2017June 27, 2024

Cocaine addiction not a bar to dismissal

In its recently released decision of Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp, 2017 SCC 30, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an employer had cause to dismiss Ian Stewart, a mine worker, who tested positive for cocaine.

Background Information

Elk Valley Coal Corp. operated a mine. Given the dangerous nature of the work, the employer implemented an Alcohol, Illegal Drugs & Medication Policy, whereby employees were required to disclose any dependence or addiction issues before a drug-related incident occurred. Further to the policy, an employee who disclosed such information would be offered treatment by the employer but an employee who failed to disclose would be dismissed if the employee was involved in an incident and then tested positive for drugs. All of the employees were required to sign a form and all employees knew and understood the policy.

Facts leading to dismissal

Mr. Stewart was a loader driver at Elk Valley Coal Corp. Although he used cocaine on his days off he did not disclose this to the employer as required by the policy. He was tested for drugs subsequent to an accident while driving the loader and the results came back positive. Mr. Stewart then claimed that he thought he was addicted to cocaine. Nine days later, the employer dismissed Mr. Stewart for breaching its policy i.e., for failing to disclose his addiction. The letter of termination given by the employer also clearly stated this as the reason

Human Rights Complaint

Mr. Stewart filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal under the Alberta Hum Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, alleging discrimination based on disability i.e., addiction.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal found that Mr. Stewart’s human rights had not been breached because the employer had terminated him solely because he had violated the employer’s policy.

The Tribunal also found that the employer had accommodated Mr. Stewart up to the point of undue hardship in that he had been given an opportunity to self-disclose without being disciplined under the policy, but had chosen not to do so.

Mr. Stewart appealed and both the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal that there was no prima facie discrimination.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Tribunal’s decision and agreed that the employer had dismissed Mr. Stewart because he had violated the policy.

The Court rejected Mr. Stewart’ argument that the reason he had not disclosed his addiction was because he was in denial. Based on expert evidence, the Supreme Court held that even if Mr. Stewart was in denial, he knew that he should not take drugs while working; he could have refrained from taking the drugs; and he had the capacity to inform his employer about his drug use.

The Court also held that it was unnecessary to decide whether Elk Valley Coal had accommodated Mr. Stewart, because the Tribunal had reasonably concluded that addiction was not a factor in the employer’s decision.

Employer Takeaways

In this case, the worker’s dismissal was upheld because:

The employer had a well drafted, clear policy on drug and alcohol use.
The employer’s policy appropriately supported and accommodated employees who were drug dependent by giving them the opportunity to self-disclose without attracting disciplinary consequences, so they could get treatment.
Expert testimony showed that the employee’s addiction did not deprive him of his ability to make choices about the drug use and self-disclose that he had a disability.
The termination letter was well drafted and made it clear that the reason for dismissal was the breach of the employer’s policy.

October 16, 2017June 27, 2024

Dismissing a Probationary Employee

It is not uncommon for employment agreements to include a probationary clause. The rationale behind a probationary period is to enable the parties to determine whether a continued employment relationship is viable. While some employees may decide to leave of their own volition during the probationary period, in the vast majority of cases, the decision to continue or discontinue employment, is made by the employer.

Length of Probationary Period

Typically, the probationary period chosen by employers is three months. However, a probationary period could even be as long as 12 months (for very senior positions), or some other length of time in between.

The reason employers in British Columbia most often select a three-month probationary period is because the Employment Standards Act (British Columbia) does not require notice, or pay in lieu of notice to be given to an employee who is terminated within three months of being hired.

Employer obligations during Probation

While employers are not required to give reasons when dismissing an employee during the probationary period, they still have an obligation to the employee to act in good faith in assessing the employee’s suitability for permanent employment.

An employer is also obliged to provide an employee with at least the minimum notice required by statute.

In the recent decision of Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority), 2017 BCSC 42, the BC Supreme Court clarified the law relating to dismissing a probationary employee.

Brief Facts

The Interior Health Authority (“Interior Health”) hired Mr. Ly in the position of Manager of Quality and Patient Safety and Client Experience at a salary of $98,000 per year. Mr. Ly’s offer letter stated “… Employees are required to serve an initial probationary period of six (6) months for new positions…” The offer letter was silent on the issue of notice.

Interior Health terminated Mr. Ly’s employment approximately two months into the job without giving him any notice, or pay in lieu and Mr. Ly sued for wrongful dismissal.

At trial, the evidence also showed that Interior Health did not make any good faith attempt to assess Mr. Ly’s suitability for continued employment during the two-month period. This was despite the fact that Mr. Ly had proactively sought constructive direction and clarity regarding his position from his supervisor.

Decision

The court held that Interior Health had not given Mr. Ly a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for the job for which he was hired and that it had not met its legal obligation to carry out a good faith assessment of Mr. Ly’s suitability for the position. On the issue of notice, the court held that Mr. Ly was entitled to three months reasonable notice because the probationary clause did not contain a contractual termination clause which limited Interior Health’s liability.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

The test for dismissal during probation is suitability.
An employer has the implied contractual right to dismiss a probationary employee without notice (subject to employment standards minimums) and without giving reasons provided the employer acts in good faith in assessing the probationary employee’s suitability for the position.
In considering whether an employer acted in good faith, a court will look at the process used by the employer to determine suitability. Factors that the court will look at include:

whether employee was made aware of the basis for the employer’s assessment of suitability before, or at the time of commencing employment;
whether the employer acted fairly and with reasonable diligence in assessing suitability
whether the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate suitability for the position
whether the employer’s decision was based on an honest, fair and reasonable assessment of the suitability of the employee
When the employer is assessing suitability, the employer can consider not only job skills and performance, but also character, judgment, compatibility and reliability.
If an employer does not act in good faith in assessing suitability, then the employer would be liable for damages for wrongful dismissal.

October 15, 2017June 27, 2024

What employers should know about retracting an offer of employment

In Buchanan v Introjunction Ltd., 2017 BCSC 1002, the BC Supreme court made it clear that, in the absence of an express contractual provision to the contrary, an employer can be liable for damages if it retracts an offer of employment that has already been accepted, even if the employee has not yet started work .

Background Information

In July 2016, the plaintiff applied for employment with the defendant and, after a series of meetings, accepted a formal contract of employment for the position of Senior Software Engineer. The plaintiff signed and returned the contract to the defendant on October 16.

The contract provided that the plaintiff would start work on November 1, 2016 at an annual salary of $125,000.

The contract also had a three-month probationary clause that allowed the defendant to terminate his employment without cause and without notice.

On October 29, the defendant’s Chief Executive Officer met with the plaintiff and informed him that it needed to retract his employment for business reasons.

Following the retraction, the defendant suggested that it might be able to provide the plaintiff with some short-term employment.

The plaintiff declined this offer and found alternative employment on or around December 19, 2016.

Decision

The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful dismissal and at trial, there were three issues before the court:

Whether the retraction amounted to a wrongful dismissal.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice.
Whether the plaintiff had failed to mitigate his losses.

Regarding the first issue, the court confirmed that even where an employee is terminated before he or she starts work, the employee is entitled to reasonable notice or damages in lieu of notice, absent an express contractual provision to the contrary.

The court went on to note that the issue then, was whether the employer could rely on the probationary clause to terminate the plaintiff’s employment without paying any damages in lieu of notice.

The defendant argued that the probationary clause should apply because it would not be logical for the plaintiff to enjoy better rights before starting work than after he started work.

The court disagreed with the defendant and held that the defendant could not rely on the probationary clause for the following reasons:

the clause provided that the three-month probation would start effective November 1, 2016 so it was not in force on the date of the retraction;
a probation clause does not give an employer an unfettered right to terminate an employee without notice or cause, per Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority), 2017 BCSC 42; and
the retraction of the employment offer amounted to a repudiation of the contract, which was accepted by the plaintiff. Because the defendant stated a clear intention to not be bound by the contract, it could not now rely on a provision of that contract to avoid or limit its damages.

Regarding the second issue, the court determined that a notice period of six week was reasonable based on all of the circumstances.

Regarding the third issue, the court held that although the employer had made a genuine offer of short-term work, it was not an offer a reasonable person, “given all of the prevailing circumstances”, would have accepted.

The court noted that the offer was vague and lacked particulars and that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to decline to pursue “an ill-defined job for unknown hours at a reduced salary” from the employer who had recently advised him that there was no need for his services.

Employer Takeaways

An employer who terminates an employment agreement without cause, must provide notice, or pay in lieu of notice, even in situations where the agreement is terminated before an employee starts work.
Employers should use carefully crafted termination clauses to limit their liability in the event of without cause terminations.
The termination clauses should be drafted in a way that protects the employer regardless of when the termination occurs.
Employers must remember that probationary clauses are not to be viewed as a mechanism to get rid of an employee without giving notice, or pay in lieu.

May 2, 2017June 27, 2024

BC Provincial Elections – Employer Obligations

With BC’s provincial election scheduled to take place on May 9, 2017, it is a good time to remind employers of their obligations in this regard.

Employer Obligations

Further to the British Columbia Election Act, an employee is entitled to have four consecutive hours free from employment during the voting hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, to exercise their voting rights on election day. Note that this requirement does not apply to early voting days.
Further to the above entitlement, employers have an obligation to ensure that employees are given sufficient time off from work, to cast their vote.
This does not mean that an employer is required to give all their employees four hours off work.
An employer is required to modify the employee’s work schedule and give time off only if the employee’s schedule does not permit four consecutive hours free from work between the hours of 8:00 am – 8:00 pm.
This means, for example, that an employee who is not scheduled to start work until noon, or who is scheduled to finish work at 4:00pm, will not need any time off to vote.

If an employer is required to give time off, it is up to the employer to decide the timing. The employer can schedule time off for voting at the beginning of a shift, in the middle of a shift or at the end of the shift.
If an employee is in such a remote location that the employee would not reasonably be able to reach a polling station during voting hours, then the employee is not entitled to any time off.
An employee who is given time off is entitled to be paid his/her regular wages for the time off.

If an employer fails to comply with the Election Act, an employer may be liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

April 14, 2017June 27, 2024

Who is a Dependent Contractor?

Employers are generally familiar with the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. However, many may not be aware that there is a third category recognized by our courts – that of the dependent contractor.

When placed on a continuum, the dependent contractor falls between an employee and an independent contractor.

Who is a Dependent Contractor?

A dependent contractor is a contractor that is economically reliant on one principal.
Regardless of how the parties choose to label the relationship, the courts will “look behind” the label that the parties have used, to determine its true nature.
The main factor that a court will consider in determining whether a contractor is dependent or independent, is whether the contractor is working predominantly for one principal.

Why should employers be concerned about Dependent Contractors?

If the relationship between a contractor and the principal is found to be “dependent”, the dependent contractor must be provided with reasonable notice of the termination of the relationship. If notice of termination is not given, a dependent contractor can sue the principal, in much the same way that an employee can sue his/her employer for wrongful dismissal.

The following case out of Ontario, shows how costly it can be for an employer, when an independent contractor is deemed to be a dependent contractor.

Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79

Facts

In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Keenan initially worked for Canac Kitchens as employees. Then in 1987, Canac Kitchens changed their status to that of contractors.

As contractors, the Keenans: hired installers; paid the installers money given by the company; were responsible for damage to cabinets during transit; and carried their own insurance. Canac Kitchens paid them on a piece work basis and their pay was not subject to any statutory deductions. Their agreement did, however, require them to devote their “full-time and attention” to Canac Kitchens.

Between 1987 and 2007, 97.5% of the Keenans’ income came from Canac Kitchens as they worked almost exclusively for them. In 2007, the Keenans also started working for Cartier, which was a competitor of Canac Kitchens, when there was insufficient work. Nevertheless, most of the income that the Keenans earned after 2007 (about 66%-80%) continued to come from Canac Kitchens.

In 2009, Canac Kitchens terminated the relationship.

The Keenans sued Canac Kitchens and the main issue was whether the Keenans were dependent, or independent, contractors.

Court’s decision

Based on the “exclusivity” of their service to Canac Kitchens in all but two years and their economic dependency on Canac Kitchens, the court held that the Keenans were dependent contractors and that the reasonable notice period was 26 months.

The court rejected Canac Kitchens’ argument that the Keenans were not dependent because they had worked for Cartier during the two years immediately preceding the termination of the relationship.

The court stated that “Exclusivity cannot be determined on a “snapshot” approach because it is integrally tied to the question of economic dependency. Therefore, a determination of exclusivity must involve… a consideration of the full history of the relationship.”

Employer Tips

To minimize liability in the event a contractor is found to be a dependent contractor, employers should take the following steps:

Have clear, concise, written agreements.
If the contractor is hired for a fixed term, the contract should clearly state the start and end date. The contract should also clearly state the notice to be given in the event the relationship is terminated before the end date.
If the contractor is hired for an indefinite period, the agreement should have an unambiguous termination clause which sets out the notice that will be given.
The termination provisions of the contract should reflect, at a minimum, the notice periods set out in applicable employment standards legislation.
To the extent possible, try to ensure that the contractor does not work exclusively or predominantly for your organization.

March 25, 2017June 27, 2024

Changes to Parental Leave

The 2017 budget lays out the Federal Governments plans to extend parental leave and benefits to 18 months.

New parents can now choose to take 18 months of leave at a benefits rate of 33% of their average weekly earnings, or 12 months of leave at a benefit rate of 55% of their earnings.

Employer concerns

Employees will be spending a much longer period of time away from work. This could be a significant operational concern if the employee is doing a very specialized job, or holds a senior position within the company.
It will be harder for the employee to get back into the swing of things after being away for 18 months.
Employers may need to offer retraining for the employee to return to the workplace successfully.
Employees could return to work after the 18-month leave, work for a short period of time and then be off work again for a further 18 months in situations where they plan on having more children.
The replacement hire would just be hitting his/her stride in the temporary position, when they would have to leave.
Businesses which do not have the resources to backfill positions and tend to use other employee to perform the tasks of the employee on parental leave, could face pushback from staff.
Employers who currently provide top-ups will need to decide whether they are going to increase the top-up amount.

Benefits of a longer parental leave

Employees get to spend more time with their newborn children.
The longer leave period will ease childcare burdens of employees.
Employees will likely be in a happier state of mind and readier to return to the workplace after the longer leave and savings on daycare fees.
It will likely be easier for employers to attract higher quality candidates to fill in for the employee on leave because of the longer duration of the leave.

When will changes take place?

The 18-month option is expected to begin in 2018. First there will be amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code after which provincial legislation will have to be amended.

March 20, 2017June 27, 2024

Marijuana in the Workplace

The legalization of marijuana has been hotly debated in Canada for some time now and employers are concerned about the impact it could have on the workplace.

On November 30 2016, the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, which was tasked with reporting on a system to legalize, regulate and restrict access to cannabis, released a framework for cannabis legalization in its report A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis. This report contains many recommendations on matters such as a minimum age limit of 18 to purchase, strict labelling requirements, maintaining a separate medical access framework, etc.

With the release of the Task Force’s report, it is expected that new marijuana legislation will be ready within a year, if not sooner.

Medical Marijuana

p>While the use of marijuana for recreational purposes is currently illegal, using marijuana for medical purposes, as prescribed by a licensed physician, has been legal since 2001. Consequently, if an employee needs to use marijuana for medical purposes, this must be permitted, with proper safeguards in place.

The employee’s request should be supported by proper medical documentation
The employer should verify that the employee needs to ingest marijuana during work hours
The employer should ask for information regarding the method of ingestion, the dosage and the frequency.

If it is established that the employee needs to ingest marijuana for medical purposes i.e., because of a disability, then the employer would be required to accommodate the employee up to the point of undue hardship. However, the fact that an employee is prescribed medical marijuana does not mean that the employee is entitled to be impaired while at work, or that the employer should permit workplace safety to be compromised.

Practical tips

Once an employer is satisfied that the request to ingest marijuana is legitimate, the employer can take steps to minimize the impact on the workplace by permitting the employee to take breaks in order to ingest the marijuana and working with the employee to determine if the marijuana could be ingested in some form other than by smoking it. If the employee is working in a safety sensitive position, the employer should make arrangements to move the employee to another position for the employee’s own safety as well as the safety of others.

Employers should also have a policy and protocols in place to deal with the use of medical marijuana. Matters that should be covered, include:

how and where the marijuana is to be stored;
where, at the workplace, the marijuana is to be ingested;
a prohibition against sharing the marijuana;
a prohibition against selling or attempting to sell the marijuana;
what steps the employer will take if the marijuana use poses a safety risk; and
the discipline that will be imposed if the policy is not followed.

Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

A number of employers have expressed anxiety around the proposed legalization of marijuana and what it means for the workplace.

However, a key thing to remember is that legalization of recreational marijuana does not mean that employees will have the right to use marijuana in the workplace, or to attend at the workplace while impaired. Consequently, much the same way that employers have policies around drug, alcohol and tobacco use, employers should have policies that also address the use of recreational marijuana at the workplace. A consequence of violating the policy would then attract progressive discipline up to and including termination.

However, if an employee develops a marijuana dependency as a result of recreational use, it would have to be treated in much the same way as a drug or alcohol dependency i.e., the employer would have a duty to accommodate the marijuana dependent employee up to the point of undue hardship.

Testing for Impairment

As with drug and alcohol use, employers will need to walk the line between respecting human rights and ensuring workplace safety when testing for marijuana impairment. Currently there is no test for accurately identifying the level of impairment of a marijuana user, which complicates matters further.

Given the ambivalence towards recreational marijuana, what employers must keep in mind when testing for marijuana use however, is that the purpose of such testing is to measure impairment. Any such testing should not be seen as a means of attempting to deter the use of marijuana, or to police its use.

March 13, 2017June 27, 2024

Employment Contracts and Termination Clauses

In Canada, employers are permitted to terminate an employment relationship at any time without cause, provided they give the employee being terminated, notice of termination, or pay in lieu.

Contractual Notice

If there is a written contract of employment, which contains an enforceable termination clause, the amount of notice (or pay in lieu) that the employer is required to give the employee, will be limited to what is stated in the clause. Often, employers will try to limit this contractual severance to employment standards minimums.

Enforceable Termination Clauses

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Wood v. Fred Deeley Imports Ltd., 2017 ONCA 158 highlights the need for vigilance in the crafting of contractual termination provisions.

In the Wood case, Julie Wood, an eight-year employee, was terminated without cause and given a severance package of 21 weeks comprising 13 weeks of working notice and a lump sum payment of eight weeks pay. The employer also continued her benefits for 13 weeks although her contractual termination clause did not mention benefits.

The termination clause in Ms. Wood’s contract stated:

[The Company] is entitled to terminate your employment at any time without cause by providing you with 2 weeks’ notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof… If the Company terminates your employment without cause, the Company shall not be obliged to make any payments to you other than those provided for in this paragraph…. The payments and notice provided for in this paragraph are inclusive of your entitlements to notice, pay in lieu of notice and severance pay pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

While the employer fully honoured its contractual commitments and Ms. Wood received more than what she would have received under the Employment Standards Act (Ontario), Ms. Wood sued the employer for wrongful dismissal. Her argument was that the termination clause was unenforceable because it did not: (a) specifically refer to the employer’s obligation to contribute to her benefits plans during the statutory notice period: and (b) clearly require the employer to pay severance pay.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with Ms. Wood on both points and held that the contractual termination clause was unenforceable. As a result, Ms. Wood was awarded a notice period of 39 weeks, which was 4.5 months more than what the employer had given her.

Employer takeaways & tips

One of the problems with the termination clause in Ms. Wood’s employment agreement was that it was ambiguous i.e., it could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Thus, while the employer argued that it complied with the Employment Standards Act (Ontario), it could also be argued, as Ms. Wood successfully did, that the wording permitted the employer to avoid paying severance pay.

The other problem with the termination clause was that it did not reference benefits, although the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) specifically requires benefits continuance.

The fact that the employer had complied fully with the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) by: (a) continuing Ms. Wood’s benefits; and (b) paying her statutory severance pay upon termination, did not matter and was insufficient to validate the clause.

For a contractual termination clause to be enforceable:

it must be clear;
it must be unambiguous;
the severance that is offered, must always meet, or exceed the applicable employment standards minimum;
it must clearly specify benefits, etc., if it is an employment standards requirement
it must clearly distinguish and comply with entitlements such as “notice of termination”, “pay in lieu” and “severance pay” as stated in the applicable employment standards legislation

March 8, 2017May 21, 2024

Domestic Violence and the Workplace

Few would pause to consider that domestic violence (DV) and the workplace could be connected in some way and that DV can have an impact on the workplace. However, recent information in this regard, notably a landmark survey launched in 2013 by researchers at the University of Western Ontario (the “Canadian Survey”) indicates that DV does indeed have a significant impact on the workplace.[1]

What is DV

DV can be defined as any form of physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse which occurs between intimate partners. Some DV behaviours such as assault, stalking and harassment, are more easily identifiable, while other types of behaviour maybe less obvious; for example, financial, or purely psychological control of the victim by the abuser.

Warning signs

Warning signs of DV include:
Bruises and other obvious injuries
Unusually quiet behaviour
Unexplained absences and tardiness
Emotional distress, tearfulness, anxiety, fear, etc.
Deterioration in work performance
Alcohol/drug abuse
Vehement denials that anything is “wrong”
Wearing clothing designed to “hide” the body

How DV can impact the Workplace

According to the Canadian Survey, of those participants who reported that they had experienced DV, 38% stated that this caused them to either miss work, or be late for work, or both. 8.5% of the same group stated that they had lost their job as a result of DV.

Other effects of DV on the workplace can include:
performance of the DV victim being negatively affected
co-workers who are supportive of the DV victim experiencing stress and anxiety
stress and tension between the DV victim and co-workers who are unsupportive
anger towards the DV victim by co-workers who may have to pick up the slack
bullying of the DV victim by co-workers and other workplace parties

DV behaviour can also spill into, or occur at, or near the workplace – for example, being stalked; receiving threatening phone calls, e-mails and text messages at work; the abuser coming into the workplace; the abuser contacting or attempting to contact co-workers and the employer, etc.

Employer tips

43% of the participants who had experienced DV indicated that they had discussed the situation with someone at the workplace. Typically, these were either their co-workers (81.6%), or their supervisors or managers (44.7%).

So, what can employers do to help victims of DV?

Steps that employers can take, include:

Educating employees, managers and supervisors on DV and how it can affect the workplace
Training employees, supervisors, managers, union representative, security personnel, etc., on how to recognize the warning signs of DV
Implementing guidelines for dealing with situations where DV is reported, or suspected
Making counselling services available to those affected by DV
Supporting the DV victim by allowing them to take time off and providing flexibility around work hours, etc.
If the workplace is unionized, involving the union as a partner in addressing and dealing with DV in the workplace

If an employee is the abuser, the employer should make it clear that workplace resources are not to be used to harass anyone and that any inappropriate behaviour will result in discipline up to and including termination. Actual violence or threats of imminent violence must be reported to the police immediately.

Issues relating to DV, which spill over into the workplace, would also be covered by occupational health and safety legislation that requires employers to provide a safe workplace. For BC employers, WorkSafeBC’s handbook “Addressing Domestic Violence in the Workplace: A Handbook for Employers” is a good resource. This handbook can be found at https://tinyurl.com/zua7o3r

December 10, 2016June 27, 2024

How to build an Inclusive Workplace

What is Diversity?

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) defines diversity as “the collective mixture of differences and similarities that include, for example, individual and organizational characteristics, values, beliefs, experiences, backgrounds, preferences, and behaviors.”

Diversity can be at the surface level as well as at a deeper level. Examples of the former include, diversity in relation to gender, race, age, physical disabilities, body-type, etc. Examples of the latter are our values, attitudes and beliefs.

What is Inclusion?

SHRM defines inclusion as “the achievement of a work environment in which all individuals are treated fairly and respectfully, have equal access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute fully to the organization’s success

Simply introducing programs aimed at hiring more minorities, more women, more transgender persons, or persons with disabilities, etc., does not, however, address issues of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. For an organization to become a truly inclusive workplace, it is important for everyone in the organization to be educated on how unconscious bias impacts our ability to be truly inclusive.

Unconscious Bias

Our values, attitudes and beliefs and the way we view the world, are shaped by many factors including our culture and upbringing. While we like to think of ourselves as being unbiased, we are all susceptible to stereotypical biases about gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. These biases are reinforced subconsciously because it is natural for us to spend most of our time with people who look like us, think like us and act like us.

Overcoming unconscious bias

In order for us to overcome these “unconscious” biases, we need to become more thoughtful and aware of the biases we hold as well as how we unconsciously communicate these biases through our speech and actions. One example would be the words we use and the tone of voice we adopt when we speak to someone we perceive as being different from us, as well as non-verbal gestures such as eye-rolling, sighing and looking away when someone is speaking to us, excluding people when we are in a group setting, etc.

If we make an effort to be more mindful of the biases we hold, then we can be more fair, more thoughtful and more respectful in dealing with our co-workers.

Practical tips for employers

Educate leaders and employees about unconscious bias
Build diversity and inclusion initiatives into the organization’s leadership programs
Develop a diversity and inclusion scorecard
Hold managers and leaders accountable for creating a workplace in which all individuals are treated fairly and respectfully
Ensure that everyone in the organization has equal access to organizational resources
Provide opportunities for everyone in the organization to grow and contribute fully to the organization’s success.

Background Information

Facts leading to dismissal

Human Rights Complaint

Supreme Court Decision

Employer Takeaways

Length of Probationary Period

Employer obligations during Probation

Brief Facts

Decision

Key Takeaways for Employers:

Background Information

Decision

Employer Takeaways

Employer Obligations

Who is a Dependent Contractor?

Why should employers be concerned about Dependent Contractors?

Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79

Court’s decision

Employer Tips

Employer concerns

Benefits of a longer parental leave

When will changes take place?

Medical Marijuana

Practical tips

Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Testing for Impairment

Contractual Notice

Enforceable Termination Clauses

Employer takeaways & tips

What is DV

Warning signs

How DV can impact the Workplace

Employer tips

What is Diversity?

What is Inclusion?

Unconscious Bias

Overcoming unconscious bias

Practical tips for employers

Resources

Contact Details

Quick Link

Services