Labour Arbitrator says: "A Finding of Harassment Requires a Departure from Reasonable Conduct."

What constitutes workplace harassment?

Every time I encounter a case of alleged workplace harassment, which is far, far more frequently than anyone outside this practice might think, I harken back to what the Honourable Justice Perell wrote in the case of High Parklane Consulting Inc. v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, 2007 CanLII 410 (ON SC):

[36] It is trite to say that that making a living is a stressful activity and that much of life can be nasty and brutish. Tort law does not provide compensation for all stress-causing and nasty conduct that individuals may suffer at the hands of another, and the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress that the conduct must be extreme, flagrant, outrageous and calculated to caused harm are the law’s ways of narrowing the ambit of the tort.

In short, there are some behaviours up with which one must put, if I may paraphrase the great Sir Winston Churchill.

But, returning to the point, the law does, at least in theory, prohibit workplace harassment. In the labour context, collective agreements often forbid such behaviour, so what then constitutes workplace harassment?

In a labour arbitration award released April 18, 2016, Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2016 CanLII 23226 (ON LA), Arbitrator Michael Bendel defined the answer as follows, “a finding of harassment requires a departure from reasonable conduct.”

The case stands as an important reminder that notwithstanding a written prohibition against workplace harassment, someone still needs to agree that the behaviour complained of rises to that level.

Disease of Alcoholism Does Not Prevent Discipline

Can an employee suffering from the disease of alcoholism be punished for her behaviour if her disease contributed to the behaviour under review? What if the employee is a police officer?

The issue of alcohol dependency among first responders is an interesting subject. Police officers are people, susceptible to any number of diseases and disabilities. Alcohol dependency has consistently been held to be a “disability” under human rights legislation. Human rights legislation prescribes that employers have a duty to accommodate disabilities, including alcohol dependency, to the point of undue hardship. So therefore, if a police officer has a problem with alcoholism her employer, the police, must accommodate that disability, correct?

In the case of Mansley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 389 (released April 7, 2016) the Federal Court was asked to judicially review a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to decline to investigate an allegation of adverse differential treatment by the RCMP on the basis of alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder.

In deciding to upheld the Commission’s decision the Honourable Justice B. Richard Bell held that the Commission’s decision, based on the findings of any investigation report, met the standard of reasonableness and fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. Mr. Justice Bell was also satisfied that the investigator conducted a thorough and neutral analysis based on the various sources of information available to her and there was no bias, apprehension of bias or breach of procedural fairness.

Woman’s Miscarriage a “Disability” says Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Is a woman's miscarriage a “disability” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code? Based on the media headlines following a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Mou v. MHPM Project Leaders, 2016 HRTO 327 (CanLII), most people would now likely answer “yes.” But did the Human Rights Tribunal really just say that suffering a miscarriage can qualify as a “disability” under the Code?

Fixed Term Employment Agreements Just got More Expensive and Dangerous for Employers in Ontario

Is an employee who is employed under a fixed term employment contract, which does not provide for early termination without cause, entitled to payment of the unexpired portion of the contract on early termination of the contract? Is that employee required to mitigate his damages following termination? Those were the question answered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 8, 2016, in the case of Howard v. Benson Group Inc. (The Benson Group Inc.), 2016 ONCA 256.

Writing for a unanimous bench, the Honourable Justice Bradley Miller held that fixed term employment agreements that do not contain a legally enforceable termination provision cannot be terminated by employers simply upon the provision of reasonable notice; the employee is entitled to payment of the unexpired portion of the contract on early termination of the contract. Perhaps of greater consequence was the court’s decision that employees employed pursuant to fixed term employment contracts are not required to mitigate their damages following termination. This is going to cost employers some serious money.

Employers Cannot Contract Out of Liability for Workplace Accidents

Can an employee contractually waive his right to sue his employer if he gets injured as a result of a workplace accident? That is to say, will a waiver signed by an employee actually prevent an employee from suing his employer in negligence?

In a decision released January 26, 2016, by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Fleming v. Massey, (2016), 128 O.R. (3d) 401, 2016 ONCA 70, the answer was “No, an employee cannot contract out of the right to sue his employer in negligence.”

The Curious Case of Damages without Liability

I will start this post by saying that the content of this post will be different from what I usually write. Typically, my posts start with a question, which is then answered by the content. However, this time it is content that leaves me with a question.

On February 5, 2016, the Honourable Justice Timothy D. Ray released his reasons for decision in the case of Muntean v Enablence Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 923 (CanLII). The “catchwords” for the decision are “lay-off notice — constructive dismissal — treat the lay-off — temporary lay-off — voicemail”. “Cool,” I thought, “a recent, local decision in my practice area. I’ll read this.” So I did.

With much respect to Justice Ray, after reading the decision and discussing it with others I simply cannot make sense of it. I like to fancy myself someone who knows a thing or two about Ontario employment law, but in this case I am simply at a loss.

If someone can explain to me why damages were awarded in this case and for what, I would be most appreciative.

Want to Wrongfully Dismiss an Employee? There’s an App for That!

Can I interest you in an app that will almost invariably get you sued? I doubt it.

It has been my experience as a litigator that few people want to be involved in a lawsuit. It has also been my experience that most people do not want to break the law. Most employers are not interested in either wrongfully dismissing one of their employees or dealing with the fallout once they do. So why would anyone be interested in an app that almost invariably ensures both a wrongful dismissal and a letter from someone like me?

The unfortunate and frustratingly ironic reason that so many employers use an app almost guaranteed to get them sued is that the app is ostensibly designed to do the opposite.

So what app am I talking about? The “Severance Pay Calculator” put out by, of all people, the Ontario Ministry of Labour.