Author Archives: colinm@groundzero.to

Buddy system among key tactics to protect workers from extreme cold, says Alberta official

This article is sourced from OHS Canada, written by Todd Humber

The first step to solving a problem is to recognize it exists.

Trent Bancarz, an Edmonton-based spokesperson for Alberta Jobs, Economy and Trade, said it’s important to remember that plunging temperatures aren’t just uncomfortable — “cold weather is a workplace hazard in certain conditions and (employers) have to take steps to assess the risks and control to the extent extent reasonable or possible.

Employers can employ a variety of strategies to mitigate the risks associated with extreme cold. This can include providing an on-site heated area or a wind shelter, implementing a warm-up schedule, and ensuring a buddy system is in place.

“Ensure no one is working alone so that if something does happen out there, there is somebody with the worker and they’re not isolated in cold conditions,” he said. “The biggest thing is just educating workers about the hazards of working in the cold and encouraging them to take the steps that will help them do so safely.”

Rules and regulations

When it comes to regulations, Alberta does not have specific laws pertaining to cold-weather work. However, there is a general requirement for employers to assess and control workplace health and safety hazards, which could include extreme cold, he said.

While the region’s laws don’t offer explicit provisions for cold weather, “there is a general requirement for employers to assess and control hazards,” Bancarz clarified.

If a worker feels that the conditions are too hazardous, they have the right to refuse to work — though he said it’s difficult to talk about hypotheticals as each situation is unique.

“Certainly, a worker has a right in Alberta to refuse dangerous work if they believe the work either can harm themselves or harm somebody else. So workers do retain that right,” Bancarz said.

What to wear

In terms of attire, Bancarz suggested layered and insulated clothing and an emphasis on keeping footwear dry.

“The key part is keeping the footwear dry. And people need to keep moving so that they’re generating body heat but avoid sweating,” he said.

Resources available to employers and workers

“Our extreme temperatures webpage is available in six other languages other than English,” he said. The languages include Mandarin, Simplified Chinese, Punjabi, Tagalog, French, and Spanish, catering to a diverse workforce, he said.

Bancarz also stressed the importance of educational resources for workers, especially for new Canadians who may not be familiar with extreme cold conditions.

Tips to stay safe in extreme cold

When you work in extreme cold, most of your body’s energy is used to maintain a consistent inner temperature. However, your body’s ability to adapt has limits. Cold stress occurs when your internal body temperature is lowered.

Early warning signs

Warning signs of cold stress include:

feeling cold and shivering
loss of feeling or tingling in fingers and toes
trouble moving fingers, hands and toes (trouble doing tasks)
frost nip (outermost layers of skin turn white)
“unusual –umbles”, such as stumbles, mumbles, fumbles and grumbles

Worsening symptoms

extreme shivering, and then shivering stops
impaired coordination
confusion
frost bite (skin freezes deeply, turning blue or red)
loss of consciousness

How to stay warm

wear layered and insulating clothing
cover exposed skin
stay in the sun
take breaks inside
keep footwear dry
keep moving to generate body heat (but avoid sweating)

What employers can do

When working in cold temperatures you should expect the following:

on-site heaters or heated shelter
work/warm-up schedule
a flexible pace where workers can take extra breaks if needed
shield workers from drafts or winds as much as possible
a buddy system so no one works alone
adjustment periods before assigning a full work schedule
do hazard assessment, put controls in place for protection and educate workers on the hazards of working in the cold

This OHS Canada Article Source: Government of Alberta

See the original article here: https://www.ohscanada.com/features/buddy-system-among-key-tactics-to-protect-workers-from-extreme-cold-says-alberta-official/

People commonly lose their job on maternity or parental leave. Critics say EI needs an overhaul

Leave a reply

The NDP is pushing for changes to the system it says is ‘discriminatory’

This article is sourced from CBC News, written by Natalie Stechyson

What happens to your employment insurance when you lose your job before returning from a maternity or parental leave?

It’s a question often asked in parenting groups, queried on social media or posed to employment lawyers as Canadian parents increasingly find themselves in this situation amid a cooling labour market and mass layoffs in several sectors, such as media and the tech industry.

“I’ve never seen layoffs like this in my life, and I’ve been doing this for 20 years,” Allison Venditti, a human resources expert in Toronto, told CBC News. She’s also the founder of advocacy group Moms at Work, Canada’s largest organization for working mothers, with 7,500 members.

Companies are cutting ranks, Venditti said, and parents who are on leave aren’t immune.

In fact, when companies are laying off employees due to economic issues, they feel more open to laying off those who are on protected leave, said Andrew Monkhouse, managing partner at Toronto employment law firm Monkhouse Law and an adjunct professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

“It’s a persistent problem in Canada,” he said in an interview.

And that can leave new parents in a financial lurch. Under the current federal employment insurance (EI) system, parents cannot combine unemployment and parental leave benefits. That has critics calling for an overhaul of the system.

On Thursday, New Democrat MP Daniel Blaikie sent a letter urging Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault to change the EI rules immediately, calling the current ones “punitive and discriminatory.”

In his letter to Boissonnault, Blaikie wrote, “Women in Canada have waited long enough for justice in the employment insurance system,” adding, “Just get it done.”

In a statement emailed to CBC News, Boissonnault said the federal government cannot comment on specifics as the issue is currently before the courts.

“Our government will always stand up to give everyone the employment assurance they deserve,” he said.

A huge challenge

Jennifer Extence of Crysler, Ont., was about 10 months into her 18-month maternity leave in January when she said she received notice that she’d been terminated immediately due to restructuring.

Extence, 39, who had been a brand manager, said she contacted Employment and Social Development Canada about two weeks later to provide an update on her situation. Her EI income was immediately stopped, she said, with the explanation that because she would be receiving severance, and severance is considered income, she couldn’t receive EI benefits at the same time.

“It was overwhelming. I never expected to be spending my maternity leave without income,” she said in an interview. “This is time with my children that I’ll never get back, and instead of enjoying every moment, I’m left with the feeling of uncertainty and stress on a daily basis.”

Severance is listed as income on the EI website.

Extence also has to repay the two EI payments she received after losing her job, she said. It’s been “a huge challenge” given the cost of groceries and diapers.

“If I was a single parent or if my partner wasn’t able to float us, I have no idea what I’d be doing to put food on the table.”

Overhauling EI

It’s a common misconception that you can’t lose your job while on maternity or parental leave — because legally you can if you’re being dismissed for reasons unrelated to going on leave.

“It’s always common, but it’s also not illegal,” Venditti said.

A worker who pays into the system has to work a specific number of hours to qualify for benefits and must do so for each new claim they make. That means a new mother who has lost her job and files a claim for regular EI benefits has to work the necessary hours anew to get their full parental leave entitlements.

In 2022, then-employment minister Carla Qualtrough said not being able to stack unemployment and parental leave benefits into one EI claim creates an equity issue in the system, particularly for new mothers. She said she was looking for ways to make the system less clunky to eliminate inequities.

The Liberal government has said it’s committed to modernizing the program. As part of its consultations, Employment and Social Development Canada surveyed Canadians, and 89 per cent of respondents agreed that parents who lose their job “prior to welcoming a child” should be able to access EI benefits for job loss without having any impact on their EI maternity and/or parental benefits.

This kind of overhaul takes time, Venditti said.

The problem is with how the system is structured, Monkhouse said, with maternity leave being part of EI. So if someone is away on maternity leave, they use up that EI allocation, unlike a worker who is laid off generally.

“There’s a disproportionate effect on the people, predominantly women, who are off on maternity leave, in terms of getting EI afterwards,” he said.

Mothers take maternity or parental leave almost twice as often as fathers, according to Statistics Canada.

Job loss on maternity and parental leave is something that’s not really talked about, even though it’s common, Venditti said, adding that one reason may be that parents who pursue legal action often have to sign non-disclosure agreements.

But she said she’s seeing a lot more women, especially in senior positions, being laid off.

“The motherhood penalty is a real thing,” she said. “People always think they’re protected until it happens to them.”

See the original article here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/parental-leave-ei-changes-1.7115993

3 lessons from Karina Gould’s parental leave that could help all Canadian families

1 Reply

by Andrea Doucet

This article was sourced from The Conversation.

Federal cabinet minister Karina Gould, leader of the government in the House of Commons, has made Canadian history three times: as the youngest female federal cabinet minister, the first to give birth while holding office and the first to take parental leave. Her approach to parental leave could well translate into her most enduring legacy.

Like all MPs, Gould wasn’t eligible for parental leave when her first child was born in 2018. Four weeks later, she resumed work in her constituency of Burlington, Ont. After another five weeks, she returned to the House of Commons with her infant in tow.

Gould has just given birth to her second child. This time, she’s doing things differently. She’s taking six months off, thanks to 2019 legislation that provides MP parents of newborns up to 12 months with paid parental leave benefits.

On the surface, Gould’s parental leave plan resembles that of many Canadians. Yet there are key differences, and they offer three lessons on how parental leave could be redesigned for each and every Canadian parent.

Lesson 1: Boost eligibility

Not all Canadians are eligible for parental leave. Almost one-third of all Canadian mothers (outside of Québec, which has a more inclusive program) do not receive paid maternity or parental benefits. This is due to many factors, including restrictive eligibility criteria of 600 employment hours in the year before a child’s birth.

MPs do not pay into Employment Insurance (EI) and so were, until 2019, ineligible for parental leave benefits. Yet the government found a policy path for them.

It’s time to rethink eligibility criteria so that more Canadians can benefit from parental leave benefits.

Lesson 2: Better wage top ups

MPs receive 92 per cent of their salaries while on leave. Similar salary top-ups exist in the public sector and some private companies. For most Canadians, however, parental leave is low-paid: only 33 to 55 per cent of wages, with a ceiling of $401 to $668 weekly and $63,200 annually.

Out of 36 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada has the lowest wage replacement rates for parental leave.

This has implications for how many Canadian fathers take their parental leave entitlements. In 2020-21, 23.5 per cent of eligible fathers took parental leave. In Québec, which has a 70-75 per cent wage replacement rate, that number was 85.6 per cent. It’s time to make leaves affordable for all parents.

Lesson 3: More flexibility

Finally, there are lessons about flexibility and choice, and what they mean in a post-pandemic world, where remote work has changed how people balance family life and paid work.

For Gould, this means taking a short post-partum leave and then combining parental leave with some remote work. As she told Canadians, she plans to “take on her MP work remotely, voting and participating in caucus and cabinet meetings, though on a reduced schedule.”

Admittedly, an MP’s job, with its unique pressures, requires a flexible parental leave system. Yet many other jobs have distinct demands.

The problem with Canada’s current system is that leaves must be taken as consecutive weeks in the first 12 to 18 months after a child’s birth.

There are other ways to do parental leave. In Sweden, for example, leaves can be taken in one or several blocks of time, in days rather than weeks, on a full or part-time basis, and across several years.

There are risks to flexible leave, however, that are well-documented in research on flexible work and gender inequalities. Some employers might not respect the boundaries of parents on leave. These boundaries are critical because parents need time to care for their infants, who demand and deserve that dedicated care.

But there are precedents to build on, such as Ontario’s “right to disconnect” policy and EI’s Working While on Claim option.

Shining a spotlight

Gould’s parental leave matters not only to her family. It should matter to all Canadians, because it shines a spotlight on the federal government’s long overdue promise to rethink and redesign parental leave policy.

There have been important changes, including a parental sharing benefit for fathers and second parents and benefits for parents of adopted children. It’s time to do more for more Canadians.

A rethinking of parental leave should begin with clarifying what parental leave is.

Currently, a paid leave to care for an infant combines parental benefits, which are lodged within EI as employment benefits, and the right to take job-protected leave, which is part of provincial/territorial/federal employment standards.

But parental leave is more than an employment policy — it’s also a care policy. Despite what the EI website states, a leave to care for an infant is not about being “away from work.” Care work is, in fact, actual work.

Parental leave also needs to be integrated with other care policies, especially early learning and child-care policies. Again, there are models to emulate, such as Sweden and other Nordic countries. There, children have a human right and entitlement to be cared for.

And there is an explicit policy aim that for every child, there will be no gap between the end of well-paid parental leave and the beginning of early learning and child care.

Recognizing the value of care

The COVID-19 pandemic had major impacts on how some Canadians, including MPs, can now do some of their paid work in the office or at home. The pandemic also illuminated the socioeconomic value of care and the care economy.

Gould understands this. As the former minister of families, children and social development, she worked with child-care advocates and experts to shepherd the creation of Canada’s first national child-care program.

When she returns from her parental leave, she will be well-placed to advocate for more inclusive integrated care policies. In fact, it may be long overdue to create a federal minister of care.

See the original article here: https://theconversation.com/3-lessons-from-mp-karina-goulds-parental-leave-that-could-help-all-canadian-families-222045

Parental leave benefits need to be more practical and equitable

1 Reply

By Sharon Sa

This article is sourced from Policy Options.

Since Canada first introduced modest paid parental leave benefits more than 50 years ago, the program has improved dramatically.

When maternity benefits were first introduced by the federal government in 1971 under what was then called unemployment insurance, mothers had to prove they had been paid to work at least 10 weeks before conception.

By contrast, eligible applicants today can choose to receive either 12 months (standard) or 18 months (extended) of paid leave with as much as 33 to 55 per cent of the individual’s paid salary toa maximum of $401 to $668 per week.

This program exists across Canada outside Quebec through employment insurance (EI). In Quebec, a parallel benefits plan is administered through the Quebec Parental Insurance Program (QPIP).

But, despite multiple reforms over the decades, Canada’s maternity and parental leave program ranks among the least generous in wage replacement rates out of the 38 OECD countries.

With a housing crisis and the overall increased cost of living, new parents are faced with growing financial pressures. Add to this the fact that benefits offered through EI have not kept up with inflation.

There is an ongoing debate over whether increasing benefits may disincentivize participation in the workforce. Research into the impact of programs administered in Quebec shows that providing complementary benefits, such as affordable child care, could mitigate this effect, particularly among less advantaged parents.

If Canada were to improve benefits, the funding mechanism used would be crucial. If payouts increase while the number of contributors to EI decreases, it could strain the government’s fiscal position, possibly leading to cuts or reallocations in other areas of government spending.

Alternatively, to compensate for the decrease in contributors, it could result in higher premiums for both employers and employees.

It would also make it difficult to increase parental and maternity leave benefits without impacting other EI benefits that are part of the current system.

The way benefits are currently administered by the EI program disproportionately impacts lower-income households. Almost one-third of all Canadian mothers outside Québec do not receive paid maternity or parental benefits, due to factors such as restrictive eligibility criteria. These include the requirement of 600 employment hours in the year before conception.

Applicants such as single mothers, freelancers, adolescent parents and other members of the workforce who fall under a lower-income threshold (typically earning between $25,000 to $43,000 per year) could also face ineligibility or other negative impacts.

For example, consider a single mother who works as a freelance graphic designer. Because she has irregular work hours and fluctuating income, meeting the current eligibility criteria for maternity benefits becomes difficult, if not impossible.

Under the current system, were she to have a second child, she could find herself without any form of paid leave to care for her newborn, triggering immense financial strain and a struggle to cover basic necessities such as rent and groceries.

Across Canada, a variety of individuals including single parents, freelancers and those with lower incomes are disproportionately affected by the current system’s rigid requirements.

Deeper issues in the EI system

A number of challenges in the way parental leave is managed under the EI system need to be rectified if outcomes are to improve in the future.

The first issue lies in creating a false sense of choice, particularly for new mothers who require longer leaves. Since the introduction of extended parental leave in 2017, findings revealed that those who opted for extended parental benefits were more likely to be high-income earners personally, have higher family income, had a partner, worked in large organizations and/or received a top-up which exists in the public sector and some private companies.

Just 15 per cent of beneficiaries opted for the extended plan. The reason for this is simple: most Canadians, particularly those with lower incomes, find it too challenging or impossible to make ends meet on the current benefit.

This leads many to return to work early. In addition, they are susceptible to steep penalties at work reinforcing gender-based bias despite protections under the Canada Labour Code.

Secondly, the current system fails to provide parental leave benefits in conjunction with unemployment benefits. Former Liberal employment minister Carla Qualtrough acknowledges that the inability to “stack” employment insurance and parental leave benefits into one claim creates an equity issue in the system, particularly for new mothers.

While a rate increase could address some short-term issues, it would fail to address larger, systemic problems of equity. Increasing benefits without considering a structural overhaul risks exacerbating these issues. Rather, removing parental benefits from the EI system and making it its own federal program is an opportunity to make the distribution of benefits fair, predictable and equitable.

Access to appropriate public support is a key component of economic well-being. Parental benefits have consequences not only for work-family balance, but also for labour market dynamics, gender equality and overall productivity.

Providing equitable access to these programs is not only a matter of individual entitlement but a cornerstone of sustainable economic growth and prosperity for society as a whole.

See the original article here: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2024/parental-leave-equity/

Employment Insurance Basics for Workers

Leave a reply

Employment Insurance isn’t just for workers who’ve lost their jobs. This national program, also referred to as EI, is available to most Canadian workers. EI provides insured workers with income for when they are too sick to work, when they need to care for critically ill family members and provides some security when workers lose their jobs.

In this workshop, Kennedy Hughes, the Workers’ Resource Centre’s Public Legal Educator, covers everything workers need to know about Employment Insurance to ensure they are prepared and informed about this essential program.

Disclaimer: This workshop is for informational purposes only. The information provided is current as of May 21, 2024. Always check with Service Canada to get the most up-to-date information about requirements and benefits provided through the Employment Insurance program.

5 Things Never to Say to Someone Who Has Just Lost Their Job

Leave a reply

This is an article sourced from the Toronto Star.

“This is the new chapter you’ve been waiting for.” Really?

“You’re going to be fine. I’m not worried about you.” I’m not fine.

“At least you’ll get EI and can relax for a few months.” Relaxing is the last thing on my mind.

“You should build an online course with all the free time you’ll have.” What???

“You’ll be back on your feet in no time, so you won’t burn through too much savings.” You have no idea about my finances.

None of the above statements, or any modest riff on them, are OK to say to someone who has just lost their job. The only response that works, and will ensure you can maintain your relationship, is this: “I’m so sorry this happened to you. Let me buy you a coffee so we can chat more.”

Thousands of Canadians are finding themselves laid off and experiencing total system shock. If you find yourself out of work (or know someone who’s been let go) implement these practical steps to help protect your mental well-being and finances.

It feels raw, traumatic and unfair, so get support

Take a few days to just sit with this change. When you are able, reach out to friends, family or your therapist for healthy support. If you have someone in your life who’s being insensitive about your job loss, put some space between the two of you. Incorporating physical activity into your days can help restore a sense of order and assist in managing the stress of losing your job.

Get your paperwork in order

Carefully read over the package of documents that you received from your employer when you were let go.

It should include a letter explaining the rationale for the layoff like restructuring, economic circumstances, relocations, mergers, buyouts, termination with cause (or not) and so on. If you’re interviewing for new jobs soon, you might need this letter to prove what exactly happened with your termination.

Have an employment lawyer review your severance package (if you were offered one) before signing anything. This professional may find an opportunity for negotiation, or quickly determine that the package is fair. If you weren’t offered anything, and feel you should have been, get this lawyer working on your file immediately. Seek immediate legal counsel if you feel you were inappropriately targeted for a layoff or your labour or human rights were violated. If you simply can’t afford a lawyer, investigate legal aid organizations near you.

Your paperwork should also include details on what happens to your benefits coverage now that you’re laid off. Sometimes there are options to extend benefits, other times coverage simply ends abruptly, and you’ll want to consider securing independent coverage for health, dental, life or critical illness.

Reduce your costs to essentials only and explore Employment Insurance (EI)

You don’t need to list your car for sale just yet. You do need to quickly shift into waste-nothing mode. Cut out costs that are not critical to meeting your immediate needs. Deep dive into your budget. Clear up any high-interest credit card debt and postpone any and all major purchases like home renovations, memberships or vacations.

Depending on how long you worked for your employer, and the circumstances surrounding why you were let go, you might be eligible for EI. Visit the Employment Insurance benefits website to start your EI application — you will need to have a copy of your Record of Employment (ROE). Sometimes employers file ROEs electronically; other times, they are mailed. EI payments are taxable and are paid to you while you are unemployed for a set period of time. You can see how EI payments are calculated at Canada.ca.

Prepare to take action on your pension

Do you have to transfer money out of a pension plan and to a different financial institution? How quickly must you take action? Are there penalties for transferring the money out of the current provider? Meet with your financial adviser to carefully review what needs to be done with your work savings plans, if anything.

Now that the practical parts around being let go are rolling along, you can come up with a plan to get back to work, on your terms. Refresh your resumé and cover letter, and update your LinkedIn profile. Use the power of AI to ensure these key documents, and your profile, have keywords that can be picked up by any applicant tracking systems, and paired with the job descriptions that you want to go after.

Be kind to yourself. You’ll need positive emotional energy to get through this difficult time.

See the original article here: https://www.thestar.com/business/personal-finance/five-things-never-to-say-to-someone-who-has-just-lost-their-job/article_1d3190de-c9b5-11ee-8d94-6fa7958470cb.html

Alberta Employer’s Accommodation Efforts Insufficient to Avoid Discrimination

Leave a reply

This is an article sourced from HRReporter.

An Alberta employer’s blanket refusal of an employee’s request for environmental testing of the workplace did not satisfy its duty to accommodate, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.

The worker was employed with Alberta Health Services (AHS), the province’s healthcare authority, starting in 1992.

For a long time, the worker experienced symptoms affecting her health, but she wasn’t sure what was causing them. Eventually, she believed that her symptoms might be connected to her work environment, so she raised the issue with AHS in August 2016. By this time, she was working as a registered nurse (RN).

“As soon as an employee identifies any type of concern or need for accommodation, that’s where the employer’s duty is really triggered,” says Nathanael Bowles, an employment lawyer at McLennan Ross in Calgary.

“Usually, this comes with some sort of absence or a note from the employee requesting a form of accommodation – in this case, as soon as [the worker] connected the workplace and her symptoms and requested the testing, that’s where the duty was triggered.”

AHS conducted a visual inspection and air quality testing where the worker worked and advised her that there was no indication of mold. It also said that, given the results of the visual inspection, there would be no mold-specific testing performed as it would be expensive.

Medical diagnosis

The worker continued to research her symptoms and thought that she might be suffering from chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) – a condition caused by sensitivity to environmental elements such as mold. A doctor who was an expert on CIRS diagnosed her with the condition in December 2016.

On Jan. 22, 2017, the worker provided a doctor’s note requesting that AHS conduct environmental relative moldiness index (ERMI) testing before she returned to work. The worker also submitted a request for accommodation asking to avoid working in water-damaged buildings and for any potential workplaces to be ERMI tested.

AHS responded that it would not conduct the ERMI testing as it was not “industry standard” or widely accepted in the medical community. It also said it had to protect all of its employees, which it couldn’t do without standardized testing of all its locations. The worker advised that her doctor was willing to accept HERTSMI-2 testing, which was a cheaper and less comprehensive form of testing.

AHS declined to allow testing, saying it would conduct a visual inspection of the workplace or she could review the vacancy list to see if other RN positions were available in other buildings.

The worker declined these options as they weren’t in line with the doctor’s recommendations. AHS maintained that the worker’s medical documentation didn’t support her claim that she couldn’t work in any location without testing.

The duty to accommodate doesn’t just rest with the employer; employees must do their part as well.

Doctor’s note

The worker provided another medical note stating that ERMI or HERTSMI-2 testing was required to determine if she was likely to be sickened at work.

AHS took the position that the worker could work anywhere that wasn’t water-damaged without testing and its health department had determined that water damage at her workplace that had occurred in 2016 had been fixed. It also said that it had no authority to require improvements to the property because it was leased.

The worker provided a form from her doctor stating that she could not work in any areas that didn’t have the testing performed. AHS responded with three offers of accommodation – she could return with a visual inspection of the building, she could review vacancies elsewhere, or she could return using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as a respirator.

At a meeting on June 13, the worker explained that the tests were non-invasive, would not affect other employees, and she would perform them herself. She advised that she could attend an untested building periodically but not regularly. She also asked why PPE was suggested without medical recommendations.

The worker also proposed remote work answering health line calls, but AHS declined.

The Alberta Human Rights decision re-enforced that employees only have to provide reasonable accommodation, not the employee’s preferred accommodation.

Accommodation stalemate

The parties could not agree on a solution, so AHS terminated the worker’s employment, alleging that the worker was unco-operative in the accommodation process. The worker filed a complaint of discrimination.

The tribunal found that there was no doubt that the worker’s condition constituted a medical disability protected under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

The tribunal also found that AHS’s rejection of the testing was unreasonable. The worker’s condition and the testing were not well-known in the medical community, so it wasn’t surprising that there were debates and the testing was not part of any industry standards, said the tribunal.

However, the tribunal found that there was no evidence that the tests would impact AHS’s operations or the safety of other employees, and all it had to do was grant permission. A lack of standardization or the fact that the property was leased weren’t reasons to reject what was “simple, non-intrusive, and non-expensive,” the tribunal said, particularly since the worker’s medical team recommended it.

“[AHS] uniformly stated that they had to take the safety of all employees into question, which is why they didn’t permit the testing, but then they didn’t provide any evidence about what impact the testing would actually have on any of the other employees,” says Bowles.

Employers have both a procedural duty and a substantive duty to accommodate, says an employment lawyer.

Case-by-case assessment

The tribunal added that even if AHS had a standard policy, its duty to accommodate would require it to review the matter on its own facts.

“There was no evidence that [AHS] actually looked to accommodate the testing – they talked about how the building was leased and that the landlord wouldn’t have approved it, but they never actually demonstrated that they made a request to see if the landlord would approve the testing and permit it,” says Bowles. “There has to be an actual substantive evaluation of an accommodation request, as opposed to a review of regular standards and a blanket denial.”

The tribunal also found that there was clearly back-and-forth communication between the worker and AHS, and the worker made her own proposals for alternate testing and working remotely. AHS’s argument that the worker didn’t co-operate in the accommodation process wasn’t credible, the tribunal said.

Conversely, the tribunal found that it was AHS who was “interested in presenting an appearance of collaboration” but wasn’t “keen on taking the steps that were necessary to address the issues involved.” The reasons for rejecting the testing and its proposals were based on the non-medical opinions of its representatives that ignored the medical information the worker provided. For example, suggesting PPE was based on the opinion of an OHS employee and not any medical authority, and it was not discussed with the worker before being brought forward.

“The employer didn’t utilize medical information – they didn’t go out and get their own third-party medical information with respect to the testing and they didn’t involve the worker’s doctor in the evaluation of the accommodation request,” says Bowles. “The tribunal took issue with that, because in cases where there are questions about what level or form of accommodation is appropriate, it’s best practice for an employer to involve medical advice.”

Employers are not required to hire more staff or create ‘make-work assignments’ to meet the duty to accommodate.

Employer didn’t collaborate

The worker provided AHS with opportunities for collaboration on accommodation solutions, but AHS did not reciprocate in a meaningful way, said the tribunal.

The test to prove undue hardship is that accommodation needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as opposed to a standardized or general basis, says Bowles.

“There were concerns about the position that the employer took with what was basically a blanket denial based on the fact that testing simply wasn’t standard practice, as opposed to an evaluation of the accommodation request on its own merits,” says Bowles. “Instead, they just looked to the standard testing procedures and determined that, because it wasn’t universally accepted as a standard testing procedure, that they couldn’t accommodate.”

The tribunal found that AHS did not look at alternatives provided by the worker and it adopted accommodation measures without input from medical professionals. As a result, the worker was unable to return to work, which was an adverse impact directly related to her disability. This satisfied the second and third elements of the discrimination test, said the tribunal, adding that AHS could not establish undue hardship because it didn’t fully explore accommodation options.

See the original article here: https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/employment-law/alberta-employers-accommodation-efforts-insufficient-to-avoid-discrimination/378799

Alberta Tops List of People Doing ‘Gig Work’ as Main Job: StatsCan

Leave a reply

This article was sourced from CBC News.

They’re the people who pick you up in an Uber or deliver groceries to your door — and about five per cent of Alberta’s workers do so-called “gig work” in their primary job, according to a new report from Statistics Canada.

Gig work, as defined by the report, refers to employment that is characterized by short-term jobs or tasks, and which doesn’t guarantee steady work and where the worker “must take specific actions to stay employed.”

An estimated 116,700 working Albertans between the ages of 15 and 69 took on jobs that featured those characteristics consistent with the concept of gig work in the final three months of 2022, according to the latest data available.

Ontario saw 4.7 per cent of its workers taking on gig work in their main job, while British Columbia saw 3.6 per cent.

The data comes from Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Surveys (LFS) in 2022 and 2023. All estimates are associated with a margin of error.

In Ontario and B.C., legislation has been introduced to respond to the growing share of the workforce who participate in such work.

In B.C., the provincial government introduced proposed new standards for gig workers in November 2023, which would see a minimum wage, tip protection and workers’ compensation coverage introduced. However, some critics, including the B.C. Federation of Labour, have said those measures don’t go far enough.

The discussion has been going on even longer in Ontario.

Last month, dozens of ride-share and food-delivery drivers in Toronto staged a strike after a joint report from Ridefair Toronto and the Rideshare Drivers Association of Ontario suggested Toronto drivers could make as little as $6 an hour. Uber has disputed those numbers.

Despite the fact that Alberta appears to be near the top of the list of the Statistics Canada report, neither legislation nor job action has materialized in the province.

In a statement to CBC News, a spokesperson for Matt Jones, Alberta’s minister of jobs, economy and trade, said app-based ride-hailing and food-delivery services provide flexible earning opportunities for Albertans and convenience for customers, while contributing to the province’s economy.

“Alberta’s government continues to review information on how labour laws may affect this sector and to monitor developments in other jurisdictions,” the statement reads.

“Occupational health and safety laws already apply to this sector while other labour laws may apply in certain situations.”

It’s possible that what’s been taking place demographically may be part of Alberta’s position atop the StatsCan list, said Eric Myers, a professor of human resources and finance at Calgary’s Mount Royal University.

“Migration numbers show that more people are coming to Alberta,” Myers said.

Research around the gig economy and its implications for Alberta workers is a top priority for the anti-poverty group Vibrant Communities Calgary this year, said Meaghon Reid, the group’s executive director.

She said that the group thinks that high growth in newcomers may be leading to higher numbers of those doing app-based gig work.

Statistics Canada’s December 2023 Labour Force Survey stated that landed immigrants accounted for 57.5 per cent of the 365,000 people who worked for either delivery apps or ride sharing in the 12 months ending in December 2023 across the country.

Nearly 900K did gig work as main job across Canada

Proponents of gig work argue that app-based platforms like Uber and DoorDash provide flexibility, economic opportunities and crucial support systems for businesses, consumers and workers, and that regulation risks destroying what makes the system unique.

“[The answer] is not dismantling the system,” wrote Diana Palmerin-Velasco, senior director, future of work, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a recent editorial for the Globe and Mail.

“In adopting standards, we must be cognizant of the potential negative effects on individuals and businesses and find an answer that ensures fairness without compromising the value of gig work or the gig economy.”

Across Canada, an average of 871,000 people aged 15 to 69 did gig work as part of their main job in the final three months of 2022, according to StatsCan. An additional 1.5 million people completed gig work at some point during the previous 12 months.

As the practice has become more widespread, more people have tried to work this way, according to Jim Stanford, economist and director of the Vancouver-based Centre for Future Work.

But the number of people who are actually able to earn a living doing it is surprisingly small in most cases, he said.

“The amount of time you typically spend waiting, unpaid for the app to give you another job can eat up half or more of your total workday,” Stanford said.

“Even if you seemed to make OK money when you had a passenger in the car or a meal to deliver, at the end of the day, especially after you’ve paid for your expenses, you can be left with just a few dollars.”

Stanford said it would be possible to put in place normal minimum wages and other basic protections in platform work.

“The whole idea of rideshare or food delivery can certainly carry on with fairer circumstances. But our governments have been slow figuring out exactly how to do that,” he said.

“Elsewhere in the world, it is happening, and we can learn from those experiences. And ultimately, we’ll have to replicate those policies in Canada too.”

The European Union initially announced draft legislation that would give gig workers employee rights in December 2021. Those regulations finally moved forward last week, and would impact an estimated 28 million workers.

See the original article here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-gig-workers-eric-myers-jim-stanford-labour-laws-1.7147122