Employment & Labour Breakfast for the Mind Presentation - June 6, 2013


Published on

In this presentation, Dentons' Adrian Elmslie, Joe Hunder, Cristina Wendel, Alison Walsh and Lauren Ignacz discuss current issues in employment and labour law including:

- Internet Use in the Workplace - Recent Cases and the Importance of Internet Policies
- Beyond the Kardashians and the Jacksons - an Update on Family Status
- Drug and Alcohol Policies: Right or Wrong, the Latest from the Courts
- Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQB: Drinking, Driving and Employer Liability
- Human Rights Complaints: The Increasing Cost of Damages

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Employment & Labour Breakfast for the Mind Presentation - June 6, 2013

  1. 1. Employment & LabourBreakfast for the MindJune 6, 2013
  2. 2. Internet Use in the Workplace –Recent Cases and theImportance of Internet Policies2Adrian ElmsliePartner
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. Introduction4• Wong v. Lantic Inc. and Rogers Sugar, 2012 ABQB 716• Involves a termination due to inappropriate use of email and the internet.• Highlights issues regarding termination for cause and the importance ofworkplace policies in controlling and dealing with inappropriate internetuse.
  5. 5. Facts - Wong v. Lantic5• Plaintiff (“W”) was chief electrician for Lantic.• Supervisor in the electrical and instrumentation departments.• He was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the electrical andinstrumentation departments and supervised nine employees in theelectrical/instrumentation shop.• November 2009 the computers in W’s shop were connected to theinternet so that various work-related searches could be undertaken bythe employees he supervised.• Computer use and internet access were governed by several companypolicies.
  6. 6. Facts - Wong v. Lantic6• In January, 2011, a safety training session was held for 50 employees,including female employees.• A video was shown during that session which depicted two womenperforming CPR on each other in lingerie.• The employee who showed the video, the site safety coordinator,resigned shortly thereafter.• He indicated that he had received the video from an employee in theelectrical/instrumentation shop.
  7. 7. Facts - Wong v. Lantic7• As a result of the CPR video the company started an investigation,examining the three computers in the electrical/instrumentation shop.• The examination determined that the CPR video originated from theinstrumentation group e-mail address and that W had pornographicimages on his email account.• W was asked if he had e-mailed any inappropriate material from hisemail account.• W admitted that such e-mail messages may have been sent to him andhe may have forwarded a few of them on.• W was then placed on paid administrative suspension pending furtherinvestigation.
  8. 8. Facts - Wong v. Lantic8• Further investigation determined that a number of employees wereengaged in sending and receiving inappropriate e-mail messages.• One employee sent inappropriate emails externally to personaladdresses (“D”).• W sent messages externally to personal and business addresses (e.g.suppliers, contractors and business contacts).• W had a number of inappropriate images stored on his hard drive undera file labeled “stuff” and approximately 25 emails that were deemed to besexually explicit or racist.
  9. 9. Facts - Wong v. Lantic9• As a result of this investigation:• 14 employees were given warning letters,• D received a five-day suspension, and,• W was terminated for cause.• W issued a claim against Lantic, claiming wrongful dismissal.• The Court dismissed W’s wrongful dismissal claim upholding theEmployer’s decision to terminate for cause.
  10. 10. Principles – Termination for Cause101. An employee has a duty to serve the employer honestly and faithfullyand not act in a way that puts the employer at risk.2. A breach of that duty must be looked at in context (i.e. did theemployee’s behaviour give rise to a breakdown in the employmentrelationship?)
  11. 11. Principles – Termination for Cause113. Supervisors are held to a different standard than a mere employee.4. Receiving, viewing, storing and forwarding pornography in theworkplace by a supervisor can signify a breakdown in the employmentrelationship that justifies termination for cause.
  12. 12. Principles – Termination for Cause125. Misconduct must be considered as a whole and in context todetermine if termination for cause is appropriate:• the number of incidents,• the duration of the conduct,• the role and seniority of the employee,• the extent of the employee’s involvement,• the employer’s reasonable expectations, including whether the conducthad been forbidden and any other information relevant to the degree ofseriousness of the conduct.
  13. 13. Application – Why Termination for Cause?13Court concluded that W had undertaken behaviour that:• set an inappropriate standard for his subordinates;• could poison the work environment;• could leave the company vulnerable to bona fide claims ofdiscrimination and harassment;• could affect the company’s reputation in the community;• could expose the computer system to threats; and,• may have meant that he was not spending his time on his work.
  14. 14. Application – Why Termination for Cause?14Why was W’s employment terminated while others received lesserpenalties?1. W was a supervisor.2. He sent or received and stored inappropriate emails on more thantwenty occasions during a one year period.3. The attachments to those emails on occasion constituted many pages.
  15. 15. Application – Why Termination for Cause?15Why was W’s employment terminated while others received lesserpenalties?4. His shop was the source of most of the inappropriate email foundduring the company’s searches and his employees appeared to bedealing with this material with his tacit approval.5. Upon occasion he received inappropriate material from others and didnot report it.6. Upon other occasions, he forwarded the material to others, includingbusiness contacts.
  16. 16. Application – Why Termination for Cause?16Ultimately, the Court summarized the situation as follows:“[W] did not act in his employer’s best interests and, in fact, with hisdissemination of pornography and racist material, he placed thoseinterests at risk. His employer relied on [W] to enforce its policies andlead his team. His behaviour violated the faith inherent in theemployment relationship. [W]’s behaviour, when considered as awhole, and in context, constituted a fundamental breach of theemployment contract and justified dismissal.”
  17. 17. Principles– The Importance of Internet Policies17• Case also illustrates the importance of policies with respect to computerand internet usage.1. The policies were clear that sending inappropriate material could resultin the employee being held liable and the company would disassociateitself from such activities.2. Personal use of email was to be limited and not include junk email orjokes.
  18. 18. Principles– The Importance of Internet Policies183. All email became a part of the company’s systems and was subject tomonitoring (particularly important where employees are allowed to usethe computer for personal use - R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53).4. The internet was to be used only for business purposes and theviewing of inappropriate material was prohibited.
  19. 19. Principles– The Importance of Internet Policies195. Policy dovetailed with other important workplace policies• Employees were to report situations that could adversely affect thecompany’s reputation (Code of Business Conduct); and• Employees who violated the Discrimination and Harassment Policywould be subject to the company’s discipline procedure.6. Employee would be subject to sanctions if he or she violated thepolicies.
  20. 20. Principles– The Importance of Internet Policies207. Additional Elements to include:• Copyright infringement and other intellectual property violations.• Security provisions (user ID, access codes and passwords).• Social Media clauses.
  21. 21. Principles– The Importance of Internet Policies21Remember:• Clearly communicate policies to employees.• Observe and enforce your policies – use it or lose it.
  22. 22. Beyond the Kardashians andthe Jacksons – an Update onFamily Status22Joe HunderPartner
  23. 23. 23Pregnant in
  24. 24. 24“They FAKED My Dad’s Voice on New Album”“The Will is FAKE!!!”“Wade Robson is Full of It!!”“Latoya’s Reality Show is a Fraud!”“Jackson 5 to Reunite…Without Michael?”“JERMAINE’S KIDS USE STUN GUN ON BLANKET”“RandyJacksonowes$500,000in ChildSupport,Asks theEstate toPay”“Prince Jackson Calls Out Auntie Janet”“MICHAELS LASTMESSAGE TOFANS”
  25. 25. 25
  26. 26. Family Status - Background26• All employees in Canada are protected against discrimination on thebasis of human rights legislation• Section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on anumber of grounds including “family status”• Majority of family status cases relate to situations where family and workobligations conflict
  27. 27. Family Status in the Context of the Law ofDiscrimination27• Once an employee has established a prima facie case of discriminationon a prohibited ground, it falls to an employer to justify its actions asbona fide occupational requirement including the obligation toaccommodate an employee to the point of undue hardship• What is family status as a prohibited ground?
  28. 28. Family Status as a Prohibited Ground28• Prohibited ground vs. “ordinary” obligation – not an easy determination tomake• No statutory definition• Complicated by two different approaches in the case law
  29. 29. Campbell River29• The starting point in any discussion on family status• British Columbia Court of Appeal decision• Campbell River test:• There is a change in a term or condition imposed by an employer;• As a result, there is an underlying serious interference with a substantialparental or other family obligation or duty.• Balance falls in favor of work obligations• Cautions about an overly expansive definition
  30. 30. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Cases30• Different approach than Campbell River• Where there is a conflict between a job obligation and a family obligation– there is a prima facie case of discrimination• 4 cases:• Brown v. Canada• Hoyt v. CN• Johnstone v. Canada• Seely v. CN
  31. 31. Brown v. Canada - Discussion31• First Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case - before Campbell River• To give a purposive effect to family status as a prohibited ground ofdiscrimination a prima facie case of discrimination occurs when there is aconflict between a family obligation and a work obligation
  32. 32. Hoyt v. CN - Discussion32• First Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case after Campbell River• Employer refused to change complainant’s work schedule toaccommodate day care request for three successive Saturdays• Unable to equally and fully participate in employment due to the dutiesand responsibility of parenthood constitutes prima facie discrimination onthe basis of family status
  33. 33. Johnstone v. Canada - Discussion33• Also critical of Campbell River approach• Family obligation must be of “substance” and Complainant must havetried to reconcile family obligations and work obligations
  34. 34. Seeley v. CN - Discussion34• Most recent case• Also rejects Campbell River approach• Adopts approach in Hoyt and Johnstone - where an employee is unableto equally and fully participate in employment because of a parentalobligation, this construes a prima facie case of discrimination on thebasis of family status
  35. 35. Take Aways35• Hoyt/Johnstone/Seely approach only applies to those employers who arefederally regulated. For most employers Campbell River remains the lawin respect of family status• It is unclear as to where the law will go as to the extent employees bearprimary responsibility for arranging family obligations• Not all family commitments equate to family status• Spectrum approach• Do not be dismissive or insensitive
  36. 36. Drug and Alcohol Policies:Right or Wrong, the Latest fromthe Courts36Cristina WendelPartner
  37. 37. Drug and Alcohol Policies: Why are they important?37• Misuse of drugs and alcohol is a key societal concern• Risk of harm in the workplace, including safety, productivity andperformance issues• Drug and alcohol policies strive to minimize these risks and satisfy theemployer’s duties and responsibilities, including:• the duty to ensure a safe workplace• the duty to support and accommodate employees• Policies provide certainty and clarity
  38. 38. Drug and Alcohol Testing – Competing Interests38• Employer’s obligation to ensure the health and safety of its employeesand others• Deterrence• Human rights concerns• Discrimination• Drug and alcohol dependencies are medically recognized disabilitiesunder human rights law• Protected grounds – mental and physical disability• Privacy concerns• Collective agreement / management rights
  39. 39. The Shower Head39
  40. 40. The Legal Landscape in Alberta Pre-Irving Pulp &Paper and Suncor40Legislation• No federal or provincial legislation regulating drug and alcohol testing in theworkplace• Human rights legislation• Provincial – Alberta Human Rights Act• Federal – Canadian Human Rights Act• Privacy legislation• Federal – (Government) – Privacy Act• Federal – (Private) – Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)• Provincial – (Government) – Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP)• Provincial - (Private) – Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA)• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – limited applicability
  41. 41. The Legal Landscape in Alberta Pre-Irving Pulp &Paper and Suncor41Case law• Ontario decisions• Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. – 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal• Random alcohol testing is lawful• Random drug testing for safety sensitive positions is not• Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada,Local 900 – 2009 Ontario Court of Appeal• Random drug testing for safety sensitive positions remains unlawful• Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown &Root (Canada) Company – 2007 Alberta Court of Appeal• Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing for safety sensitive positions is lawful in Alberta
  42. 42. KBR - Background Facts42• KBR was a construction company working at the Syncrude facility• KBR’s hiring policy was that all prospective, non-unionized employeeswere required to take and pass a post-offer/pre-employment drug test• John Chiasson – received a job offer from KBR subject to the resultsfrom his pre-employment test• Takes the test and fails• KBR terminates his employment• Chiasson files a human rights complaint alleging discrimination inemployment on the grounds of physical and mental disability.
  43. 43. KBR – Human Rights Panel Decision – June 7, 200543• Uncontradicted testimony was that Chiasson was not addicted tocannabis but rather was an occasional, recreational user• Found no actual disability and no perceived disability• Drug testing policy was prima facie discriminatory for addicted persons –no accommodation
  44. 44. KBR – Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench – May 29,200644• Appeal allowed• Panel was correct in terms of its findings on no actual disability• Panel erred with respect to perceived disability• Found that KBR’s policy violated the human rights legislation• Zero tolerance, automatic termination and no accommodation
  45. 45. KBR – Alberta Court of Appeal – December 28, 200745• Appeal allowed – Panel decision restored• Disagreed with the Court of Queen’s Bench’s conclusion that the policywas discriminatory based on a perceived disability• Found that the policy did not perceive Chiasson to be an addict – insteadperceived that persons who use drugs at all are a safety risk• Did not deal with the issue of how the policy affected addicts• Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused
  46. 46. Implications from KBR46• Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing for safety sensitive positions islawful• By extension, random drug testing for safety sensitive positions is likelylawful (alcohol testing for safety sensitive positions was previouslyconsidered lawful)• Post incident and reasonable cause drug and alcohol testing – generallyconsidered lawful for both safety sensitive and non-safety sensitivepositions• Outstanding - the extent of the accommodation required for addicts whotest positive in pre-employment tests
  47. 47. Recent Developments: Random Drug and AlcoholTesting47Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 v.Suncor Energy Inc. – 2012 Alberta Court of Appeal• Upheld an interim injunction which prohibited Suncor from implementing a newrandom drug and alcohol testing program pending a decision from anarbitration board on a policy grievanceCommunications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Limited – 2012 Supreme Court of Canada• Heard appeal arising from arbitration board decision upholding a policygrievance of Irving Pulp & Paper’s policy of random alcohol testing foremployees in safety sensitive positions• Court of Appeal – random alcohol testing of employees in safety sensitivepositions is lawful
  48. 48. Suncor – Background Facts48• Suncor – energy company with significant operations in the Albertaoilsands• CEP represents approximately 3,400 Suncor employees working at theoilsands operation• June 20, 2012 – Suncor sends a letter to its employees advising that itwill be introducing a new drug and alcohol testing policy on October 15,2012• The new policy would impose random drug and alcohol testing on allunion members in “safety sensitive” or “specified” positions• July 19, 2012 – CEP files a grievance regarding the new policy• CEP applies for an interim injunction prohibiting Suncor fromimplementing the new policy until an arbitration board renders a decisionon the policy grievance
  49. 49. Suncor – Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench – October12, 201249• Granted the injunction• Noted the Suncor plant was an inherently dangerous workplace• Applied the three-part test for injunctions:1. Serious issue to be tried – took into account the fact that the Supreme Court ofCanada was scheduled to hear the appeal in Irving Pulp & Paper2. Irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted – found that given the impacton innocent employees’ privacy, dignity and bodily integrity and the possibility that theinfringement could not be remedied, the non-consensual seizure of bodily fluids couldcause irreparable harm3. The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction – considered thetemporary delay in imposing random testing would not be a great inconvenience toSuncor
  50. 50. Suncor – Alberta Court of Appeal Stay Application –October 22, 201250• Denied Suncor’s application for a stay of the injunction pending appeal• Found that “for this comparatively short period, the negative effect onUnion members is visible, and the prospect of an actual increase in themargin of safety during such a short window of time is not enough toovercome that fact.”
  51. 51. Suncor – Alberta Court of Appeal – December 5, 201251• Dismissed the appeal• Majority found that the non-consensual taking of bodily fluids was asubstantial affront to an individual’s privacy rights• Majority found there was no evidence of immediate peril caused by wideranging drug or alcohol use or a significant risk of loss by accident toswing the balance of convenience to Suncor’s side
  52. 52. Suncor - Dissent – Justice Côté52• The Dissent would allow the appeal and remove the injunction• Decision focused on the safety aspect• Considered the pivotal issue to be comparing death or maiming withgiving a urine sample to be tested• Found the evidence showed that it was likely that there would be anaccident caused by substance impairment
  53. 53. Irving Pulp & Paper Limited – New Brunswick – 2009-2013 (?)53• Arose from a policy grievance to an arbitration board regarding Irving Pulp &Paper’s drug and alcohol testing policy which provided for random alcoholtesting by breathalyzer for employees in safety sensitive positions• Arbitration board upheld the grievance finding that Irving Pulp & Paper hadfailed to establish a need for the policy• The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench allowed an application for judicialreview and quashed the arbitration board’s decision• The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal• Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was heard December 7, 2012 –awaiting decision
  54. 54. Irving Pulp & Paper - Background Facts54• Irving Pulp & Paper operates a kraft paper mill• In 2006, Irving Pulp & Paper unilaterally adopted a policy which includedmandatory, random alcohol testing by breathalyzer for employees insafety sensitive positions• One employee was randomly tested – zero blood alcohol• He filed a policy grievance challenging the without cause aspect of thepolicy
  55. 55. Irving Pulp & Paper – Decisions55• Arbitration Board – “dangerous work environment” versus “ultra-hazardous” or“ultra-dangerous” – different burdens of justification required• Court of Queen’s Bench - applied the standard of review of reasonableness andruled the arbitration board’s decision was unreasonable• It was unreasonable to require evidence of pre-existing alcohol problems once concludedthe workplace was dangerous• New Brunswick Court of Appeal – disagreed with the Court of Queen’s Benchregarding the appropriate standard of review – should have been correctness• Evidence of an existing alcohol problem in the workplace is unnecessary once theworkplace is classified as inherently dangerous• Irving Pulp & Paper kraft mill was inherently dangerous, therefore no evidence ofexisting alcohol problems was required to support the policy
  56. 56. In the meantime . . .56Teck Coal Limited – May 9, 2013• Teck Coal introduced mandatory random drug and alcohol testing at its safetysensitive mining operations• Teck Coal employees are represented by the United Steelworkers• Union grieved the new policy and applied for an interim order prohibiting TeckCoal from continuing to implement the policy pending the determination of thegrievance• Irreparable harm - weighing drug and alcohol testing versus the risk of anindustrial accident• Drug and alcohol testing is more amenable to being compensated in damageswhile the risk of an industrial accident has a greater potential for irreparableharm• Application dismissed
  57. 57. What does this all mean?57• Current uncertainty in the validity of drug and alcohol policies allowing forrandom drug and alcohol testing will hopefully be resolved• Potential for reconciliation of conflicting case law across Canada• Will we be disappointed?
  58. 58. Recent Developments inEmployment Law58
  59. 59. Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQBDrinking, Driving and EmployerLiability59Alison WalshAssociate
  60. 60. Employer Host Liability60• Employers have a general duty to provide workers with a safe workenvironment.• Common Law• Occupational Health and Safety Act• Criminal Code, section 217.1• An employer may owe an employee, or an innocent third party injured bythe employee, a duty of care if an employee becomes intoxicated at workor at a work event hosted by the employer.
  61. 61. II. Employer Host Liability61Legal test for establishing host liability:1) Does the host owe a duty of care to the plaintiff (requires analysis offoreseeability and proximity)?2) If a duty of care exists, what is the standard of care necessary in thecircumstances?3) Has the standard of care been met?4) Is there a causal connection between the host’s alleged negligentconduct and the damage suffered by the plaintiff?
  62. 62. Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQB 35262Facts of Case:• Rick Muir was a principal of 4M Water Hauling Ltd.• In February 2005 several employees and friends of Mr. Muir were drinking in anoffice on 4M’s premises.• After finishing work, Ms. Bakalar, a member of the administrative staff, joinedthem for drinks. There was no clear evidence that any alcohol was provided toher by her employer.• Mr. Muir left around 9:00 pm. Ms. Bakalar did not appear inebriated.• Ms. Bakalar stayed until around 2:00 am to 2:30am and left in her vehicle. Shewas involved in a head on collision and died.• It was unclear how much Ms. Bakalar had to drink, however her blood alcohollevel was estimated to be approximately .24.• It was alleged that 4M and Mr. Muir failed to meet the standard of care requiredof an employer.
  63. 63. Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQB 352634M’s Policy Regarding Alcohol:• Policy stipulated that no employee was to be under the influence of or inpossession of alcohol while on a work site, in a work vehicle or piece ofequipment, either as a driver or a passenger. Violation constitutedgrounds for dismissal.• Ms. Bakalar was aware of the policy - one of her duties was to make sureit was explained and understood by other employees.• 4M also had a policy that any employee was free to use a taxi at anytime, for any reason, and to charge the company.
  64. 64. Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQB 35264Foreseeability and the Employer/Employee Relationship:• It was argued that because Ms. Bakalar was a 4M employee, a duty ofcare stemmed from the employer/employee relationship.• This was rejected. The employer/employee relationship does not replacethe foreseeability analysis. Although the nature of a relationship canimpact foreseeability, in this case, the employment aspect of therelationship only made it less foreseeable Ms. Bakalar would driveimpaired, due to the fact that as an employee she could use a taxi atcompany expense (which she had done before).
  65. 65. Jenkins v. Muir, 2012 ABQB 35265Decision:• The defendants were not held to be liable.• It was not foreseeable for the employer to conclude that Ms. Bakalarwould become intoxicated and then drive.• There was no evidence as to the supply of alcohol at the office, nor wasthere evidence of a history of people staying late at 4M to drink.• Additionally, there was no basis for the employer to conclude that if Ms.Bakalar had stayed and drank to the point of intoxication, that she wouldsubsequently choose to drive.• Ms. Bakalar had used taxis at company expense before, whichsuggested that even if she did become intoxicated, she would take a taxi.
  66. 66. Take-Home Points661) Have clear policies with respect to possession and use of alcohol anddrugs at the workplace, including social events and in connection withthe use and operation of company vehicles.2) Ensure policies are well communicated and consistently enforced.3) Be aware that despite the best policies, it is difficult to avoid all risksassociated with employees’ consumption of alcohol and driving. Thereis a higher risk of liability if:• employee is in possession of company vehicle;• employer supplies alcohol to employee;• alcohol is consumed on work premises or during work hours;• there is no monitoring of employee’s alcohol consumption at work event; or• there is no plan in place for employees who have had too much to drink toget home.
  67. 67. Take-Home Points674) For employer sponsored social events where alcohol will be served:• take reasonable steps to monitor the alcohol consumption of employeesand attendees during social events;• take reasonable steps to prevent an employee from driving when theemployer knows or ought to have known that the person is likely impairedand is likely to drive;• implement a designated driver program for company sponsored event;• provide taxi vouchers, bus passes or other alternative transportation toemployees after the social event; and• clearly communicate the availability of alternate transportation andemphasize and message that no one should be drinking and driving at thebeginning and during the event.5) Employers should have insurance policies with adequate limits forwork vehicles used by employees.
  68. 68. Human Rights ComplaintsThe Increasing Cost ofDamages68Lauren IgnaczStudent-at-Law
  69. 69. Walsh v. Mobile Oil Canada, (2012 ABQB 527)69• Walsh suffered a stress disorder as a result of her employment• Discrimination based on gender, was receiving unequal pay• Employment terminated• Second complaint, employer retaliated against first complaint by terminating her employment• HR Tribunal awarded $25,000 in general damages• Mobile Oil appealed the award: “There is no precedent for a $25,000award”• The purpose of the Human Rights Act is to compensate the victim, as istort law• There is no maximum award stipulated by the Act• Tort law award would be > $40,000• High awards encourage respect for the legislation
  70. 70. Chieriro v. Michetti, (2013 AHRC 3)70• Chieriro was new to Canada, from Nigeria• Discrimination based on color (black), race, place of origin, ancestry(Africa), and religion• Discrimination, leave of absence, employment termination• HR Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages• Actions of the employers were reprehensible• Where discrimination lead to loss of employment, the Tribunal will seekto compensate the victim for emotional harm• Employment is considered the most important facet in a person’s life• Loss of employment due to discrimination has the potential to strike atthe very core of the person
  71. 71. Questions?71
  72. 72. Thank you!Adrian Elmslie adrian.elmslie@dentons.com 780 423 7364Fausto Franceschi fausto.franceschi@dentons.com 780 423 7348Joe Hunder joseph.hunder@dentons.com 780 423 7354Cristina Wendel cristina.wendel@dentons.com 780 423 7353Colleen Verville colleen.verville@dentons.com 780 423 7103Alison Walsh alison.walsh@dentons.com 780 423 7147Lauren Ignacz lauren.ignacz@dentons.com 780 423 7252
  73. 73. The preceding presentation containsexamples of the kinds of issuescompanies dealing with employmentand labour laws could face. If you arefaced with one of these issues, pleaseretain professional assistance as eachsituation is unique.