5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Employment Law Issues (9:V)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Law Issues (9:V) (view source)
Revision as of 21:29, 1 September 2016
, 21:29, 1 September 2016no edit summary
| Line 533: | Line 533: | ||
Courts are required to take a contextual approach to determining whether just cause for dismissal existed, taking into account numerous factors. See the Supreme Court of Canada case of ''McKinley v BC Tel'', [2001] 2 SCR 161. | Courts are required to take a contextual approach to determining whether just cause for dismissal existed, taking into account numerous factors. See the Supreme Court of Canada case of ''McKinley v BC Tel'', [2001] 2 SCR 161. | ||
Although there is no comprehensive list of what constitutes just cause, the list below discusses some of the more common grounds for a dismissal. | |||
==== a) Insubordination/Disobedience ==== | ==== a) Insubordination/Disobedience ==== | ||
| Line 636: | Line 636: | ||
=== 10. Constructive Dismissal === | === 10. Constructive Dismissal === | ||
In some circumstances, an employer can make fundamental changes to the terms of an employee’s employment in such a way that the employee may be forced to leave their job. This is called “constructive dismissal”, and an employee who is constructively dismissed is entitled to the same benefits as if he were fired without cause. | |||
If the employer makes a fundamental, unilateral change in the employment contract, it may amount to constructive dismissal. Changes to a “fundamental term of the contract” includes changes such as: significant reduction in salary, a significant change in benefits, a significant change in job content or status, or a job transfer to a different geographic location if such a transfer is not a normal occurrence or contemplated in the employment contract. Generally, a reduction in pay of more than 10% may result in a constructive dismissal. | If the employer makes a fundamental, unilateral change in the employment contract, it may amount to constructive dismissal. Changes to a “fundamental term of the contract” includes changes such as: significant reduction in salary, a significant change in benefits, a significant change in job content or status, or a job transfer to a different geographic location if such a transfer is not a normal occurrence or contemplated in the employment contract. Generally, a reduction in pay of more than 10% may result in a constructive dismissal. | ||
The imposition of a temporary layoff, where not provided for in the contract, has also been deemed to constitute constructive dismissal (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#7. Redundancy and Layoff | Section | The imposition of a temporary layoff, where not provided for in the contract, has also been deemed to constitute constructive dismissal (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#7. Redundancy and Layoff | Section V.C.7: Redundancy and Layoff]] for details). | ||
Suspensions from work may result in a constructive dismissal, particularly if the suspension is without pay. The case of ''Cabiakman v Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co'', [2004] 3 SCR. 195 reinforced an employer’s right to impose a suspension for administrative reasons, with pay, provided the employer is acting to protect legitimate business interests, the employer is acting in good faith and fairly, and the suspension is for a relatively short period. | Suspensions from work may result in a constructive dismissal, particularly if the suspension is without pay. The case of ''Cabiakman v Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co'', [2004] 3 SCR. 195 and ''Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission'', 2015 SCC 10, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 500, reinforced an employer’s right to impose a suspension for administrative reasons, with pay, provided the employer is acting to protect legitimate business interests, the employer is acting in good faith and fairly, and the suspension is for a relatively short period. | ||
A constructive dismissal claim is a drastic step for an employee, as it involves the employee leaving work (as though they were fired) and then bringing an action for constructive dismissal. The employee will no longer be receiving compensation from employment, and will instead be seeking to recoup that compensation through a court action. | A constructive dismissal claim is a drastic step for an employee, as it involves the employee leaving work (as though they were fired) and then bringing an action for constructive dismissal. The employee will no longer be receiving compensation from employment, and will instead be seeking to recoup that compensation through a court action. | ||
| Line 657: | Line 659: | ||
==== c) Repudiation ==== | ==== c) Repudiation ==== | ||
Employees alleging constructive dismissal bear the risk that the court finds they have repudiated their contract of employment by either leaving the workforce or commencing legal proceedings against their employer (or both). | Employees alleging constructive dismissal bear the risk that the court finds they have repudiated their contract of employment by either leaving the workforce or commencing legal proceedings against their employer (or both). If a court finds the employee repudiated the contract (i.e. quit instead of being constructively dismissed) then the employee does not get severance. | ||
=== 11. Resignation v. Dismissal === | === 11. Resignation v. Dismissal === | ||
Not all resignations are resignations, and not all dismissals are dismissals. The legal test is what a reasonable person would have understood by the relevant statements and actions, taking into consideration the context of the particular industry, and all surrounding circumstances | Not all resignations are resignations, and not all dismissals are dismissals. The legal test is what a reasonable person would have understood by the relevant statements and actions, taking into consideration the context of the particular industry, and all surrounding circumstances. | ||
To be effective, resignation must be clear and unequivocal. There must be a clear statement of an intention to resign, or conduct from which that intention would clearly appear. See ''Koos v A & A Customs Brokers Ltd.'' (2009 BCSC 563). | To be effective, resignation must be clear and unequivocal. There must be a clear statement of an intention to resign, or conduct from which that intention would clearly appear. See ''Koos v A & A Customs Brokers Ltd.'' (2009 BCSC 563). | ||
For example, harassment at work could cause the employee to be unable to continue working and this might cause them to resign; in cases such as these, additional research should be done to determine whether the situation should be considered a resignation or a dismissal. | |||
=== 12. Sale of a Business === | === 12. Sale of a Business === | ||
| Line 681: | Line 685: | ||
Prior to the ''Honda v Keays'' decision, damages awarded where the employer had acted in bad faith were assessed by simply extending the notice period to which the employee would otherwise be entitled. This practice was based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in ''Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd'', [1997] 3 SCR 701, and the awards were informally known as “Wallace Damages”. Following the ''Honda v Keays'' decision, the practice of assessing damages by extending the notice period is no longer to be used. Now, one must prove what actual losses or mental harm the employee incurred, and the employee is then compensated for those actual losses or mental distress. | Prior to the ''Honda v Keays'' decision, damages awarded where the employer had acted in bad faith were assessed by simply extending the notice period to which the employee would otherwise be entitled. This practice was based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in ''Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd'', [1997] 3 SCR 701, and the awards were informally known as “Wallace Damages”. Following the ''Honda v Keays'' decision, the practice of assessing damages by extending the notice period is no longer to be used. Now, one must prove what actual losses or mental harm the employee incurred, and the employee is then compensated for those actual losses or mental distress. | ||
What constitutes “bad faith” is for the courts to decide, and has in the past centred on deception and dishonesty. Mere “peremptory” treatment is not sufficient: see, for example, ''Bureau v KPMG Quality Registrar Inc'', [1999] NSJ No. 261 (NSCA). Sexual harassment has been held not to give rise to additional damages (''Chiang v Kejo Holdings Ltd'', 2005 BCSC 414). See, however, ''Sulz v Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General'', 2006 BCCA 582 where punitive damages were awarded for sexually harassing conduct in the employment context. “Bad faith” has been found in cases the following cases: i) where the employer lied to the employee about the reason for dismissal (see ''Duprey v Seanix Technology (Canada) Inc'', 2002 BCSC 1335, where an employer told a commissioned employee he was being released due to financial hardship, when it was found he was being released so the employer would not have to pay owed commission); ii) where an employer has deceived the employee about representations of job security (''Gillies v Goldman Sachs Canada'', 2001 BCCA 683); iii) where a senior employee was induced to leave his position under the promise of job leading to retirement; and iv) where an employer promised an employee he would keep his job after a merger, although he knew differently (''Bryde v Liberty Mutual'', 2002 BCSC 606). In one case, a response by employer’s counsel to an employee’s counsel containing an allegation of just cause where none existed was held not to constitute bad faith (''Nahnychuk v Elite Retail Solutions Inc'', 2004 BCSC 746). However, in another province, a letter threatening to allege just cause where none existed, for the purpose of forcing a settlement, even though just cause was not plead in court, was held to give rise to additional damages (''Squires v Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd'', [1999] NJ No 146 (Nfld CA)). | What constitutes “bad faith” is for the courts to decide, and has in the past centred on deception and dishonesty. Mere “peremptory” treatment is not sufficient: see, for example, ''Bureau v KPMG Quality Registrar Inc'', [1999] NSJ No. 261 (NSCA). Sexual harassment has been held not to give rise to additional damages (''Chiang v Kejo Holdings Ltd'', 2005 BCSC 414). See, however, ''Sulz v Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General'', 2006 BCCA 582 where punitive damages were awarded for sexually harassing conduct in the employment context. “Bad faith” has been found in cases the following cases: | ||
i) where the employer lied to the employee about the reason for dismissal (see ''Duprey v Seanix Technology (Canada) Inc'', 2002 BCSC 1335, where an employer told a commissioned employee he was being released due to financial hardship, when it was found he was being released so the employer would not have to pay owed commission); | |||
ii) where an employer has deceived the employee about representations of job security (''Gillies v Goldman Sachs Canada'', 2001 BCCA 683); | |||
iii) where a senior employee was induced to leave his position under the promise of job leading to retirement; and | |||
iv) where an employer promised an employee he would keep his job after a merger, although he knew differently (''Bryde v Liberty Mutual'', 2002 BCSC 606). In one case, a response by employer’s counsel to an employee’s counsel containing an allegation of just cause where none existed was held not to constitute bad faith (''Nahnychuk v Elite Retail Solutions Inc'', 2004 BCSC 746). However, in another province, a letter threatening to allege just cause where none existed, for the purpose of forcing a settlement, even though just cause was not plead in court, was held to give rise to additional damages (''Squires v Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd'', [1999] NJ No 146 (Nfld CA)). | |||
(1) Good faith performance of Contracts | |||
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the principle of good faith performance of contracts and its creation of the new common law duty of honesty in contractual performance in Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71. | |||
This case was referenced in Styles v Alberta Investment Management Corporation, 2015 ABQB 621, where the court awarded $440,000 for the employer's refusal to pay awards under a long term incentive plan, in breach of duty of honest performance and good faith. | |||
If one suspects the employer acted in bad faith in the manner of dismissal, one should do further research to determine whether the employee has a strong case. For a table of cases in which aggravated or punitive damages were sought, and a list of the damages awarded, see “Aggravated and Punitive Damages and Related Legal Issues”, Employment Law Conference 2013, Paper 8.1, CLE BC. | If one suspects the employer acted in bad faith in the manner of dismissal, one should do further research to determine whether the employee has a strong case. For a table of cases in which aggravated or punitive damages were sought, and a list of the damages awarded, see “Aggravated and Punitive Damages and Related Legal Issues”, Employment Law Conference 2013, Paper 8.1, CLE BC. | ||
| Line 689: | Line 703: | ||
If the conduct of the employer was especially outrageous, harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, or malicious, then the court may award punitive damages (see ''Honda Canada Inc v Keays''). The focus will be on the employer’s misconduct, and not on the employee’s loss; the damages are not designed to compensate, but rather to punish and deter. Generally, the discretion to award punitive damages has been cautiously exercised and used only in extreme cases. Courts are wary of the risk of double-compensation where punitive damages and aggravated damages are considered in the same case. | If the conduct of the employer was especially outrageous, harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, or malicious, then the court may award punitive damages (see ''Honda Canada Inc v Keays''). The focus will be on the employer’s misconduct, and not on the employee’s loss; the damages are not designed to compensate, but rather to punish and deter. Generally, the discretion to award punitive damages has been cautiously exercised and used only in extreme cases. Courts are wary of the risk of double-compensation where punitive damages and aggravated damages are considered in the same case. | ||
Punitive damages are, however, currently on an upward trend in B.C. Since the Honda decision, courts have generally required medical evidence showing that an employee suffered mental harm in order to award aggravated damages, and this has left certain employees, who are less susceptible to suffering mental harm, without that recourse. The courts are tending to award punitive damages more often now than in the past in order to make up for this discrepancy. If an employee was treated particularly harshly, but did not suffer documented medical harm, consider claiming punitive damages. See the paper entitled “Aggravated and Punitive Damages and Related Legal Issues” for a table of cases in which aggravated or punitive damages were sought in order to compare your situation to others and determine an appropriate amount of damages (link in [[{{PAGENAME}}#13. Aggravated and Punitive Damages | section | Punitive damages are, however, currently on an upward trend in B.C. Since the Honda decision, courts have generally required medical evidence showing that an employee suffered mental harm in order to award aggravated damages, and this has left certain employees, who are less susceptible to suffering mental harm, without that recourse. The courts are tending to award punitive damages more often now than in the past in order to make up for this discrepancy. If an employee was treated particularly harshly, but did not suffer documented medical harm, consider claiming punitive damages. See the paper entitled “Aggravated and Punitive Damages and Related Legal Issues” for a table of cases in which aggravated or punitive damages were sought in order to compare your situation to others and determine an appropriate amount of damages (link in [[{{PAGENAME}}#13. Aggravated and Punitive Damages | section V.C.13: Aggravated and Punitive Damages]], above). | ||
If the employee has suffered any of the following situations through the employer’s conduct, consider claiming for punitive damages: *Defamation | If the employee has suffered any of the following situations through the employer’s conduct, consider claiming for punitive damages: | ||
*Defamation | |||
*Malicious prosecution, if the employer maliciously instigates criminal proceedings against an employee (''Teskey v Toronto Transit Commision'', 2003 OJ No 4547) | *Malicious prosecution, if the employer maliciously instigates criminal proceedings against an employee (''Teskey v Toronto Transit Commision'', 2003 OJ No 4547) | ||
*Duress | *Duress | ||
| Line 710: | Line 725: | ||
*Interference with trade unions | *Interference with trade unions | ||
*Any independent causes of action | *Any independent causes of action | ||
*Being “mean and cheap in trying to get rid of an employee” as ''Gordon v. Altus'', 2015 ONSC 5663 | |||
*Unduly insensitive treatment during attempts to exercise rights to contract renegotiation” ''Pepin v. Telecommunications Workers Union'', 2016 BCSC 790. | |||
==== c) Workplace Investigations ==== | |||
Workplace investigations into misconduct must be carried out in a good faith manner without bias. Unfair process may entitle an employee to aggravated or punitive damages. | Workplace investigations into misconduct must be carried out in a good faith manner without bias. Unfair process may entitle an employee to aggravated or punitive damages. | ||
A flawed workplace investigation followed by a dismissal can attract aggravated damages. ''Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada'', 2015 BCSC 1639, aggravated damages of $30,000. ''Kong v. Vancouver Chinese Baptist Church'', 2015 BCSC 1328, aggravated damages of $30,000. ''George v. Cowichan Tribes'', 2015 BCSC 513 aggravated damages of $35,000. | |||
=== 14. Duty to Mitigate === | === 14. Duty to Mitigate === | ||
==== a) | ==== a) Common Law ==== | ||
Claimants in civil court should be aware that an employee has a common law duty to mitigate his or her losses. The employee need only take reasonable steps to do so; searching for similar work is sufficient. | |||
Because of the requirement to mitigate, the employee may have to take another job the employer offers, as long as the new job is not at a lower level than the previous one, and the change does not amount to constructive dismissal. Similarly, a dismissed employee may have to accept an employer’s offer to work through the notice period (''Evans v Teamsters Local Union'', 2008 SCC 20). Retraining may be considered part of mitigation if it is to enter a job field with better prospects. This applies where an employee tries and fails to obtain alternate suitable employment (''Cimpan v Kolumbia Inn Daycare Society'', [2006] BCJ No 3191). | Because of the requirement to mitigate, the employee may have to take another job the employer offers, as long as the new job is not at a lower level than the previous one, and the change does not amount to constructive dismissal. Similarly, a dismissed employee may have to accept an employer’s offer to work through the notice period (''Evans v Teamsters Local Union'', 2008 SCC 20). Retraining may be considered part of mitigation if it is to enter a job field with better prospects. This applies where an employee tries and fails to obtain alternate suitable employment (''Cimpan v Kolumbia Inn Daycare Society'', [2006] BCJ No 3191). | ||
| Line 728: | Line 745: | ||
An employee does not have to take every action possible to mitigate. Employees are not required to return to a position where the fundamental terms of their job have changed or where they have been maligned such that the relationship cannot be restored. Accusations of dishonesty in negotiations or radically limited and uncertain terms in offers may result in reemployment being found to be unreasonable. The employee is not expected to act in the employer’s best interest to the detriment of their own interests. For example, if an employee was ill at the time of dismissal they are not required to make strenuous efforts to find new employment. Similarly, an employee in the late stages of pregnancy may not be required to seek new employment until several months after the birth of their child. The employee’s perception of what is reasonable is usually given more weight than that of the employer. | An employee does not have to take every action possible to mitigate. Employees are not required to return to a position where the fundamental terms of their job have changed or where they have been maligned such that the relationship cannot be restored. Accusations of dishonesty in negotiations or radically limited and uncertain terms in offers may result in reemployment being found to be unreasonable. The employee is not expected to act in the employer’s best interest to the detriment of their own interests. For example, if an employee was ill at the time of dismissal they are not required to make strenuous efforts to find new employment. Similarly, an employee in the late stages of pregnancy may not be required to seek new employment until several months after the birth of their child. The employee’s perception of what is reasonable is usually given more weight than that of the employer. | ||
In a legal dispute, the onus of proof as to whether the claimant former employee has properly taken efforts to mitigate their damages generally falls on the defendant former employer. | |||
==== b) Employment Standards ==== | |||
There is no duty to mitigate in order to receive statutory compensation for length of service under the ESA. An employee is entitled to statutory termination pay regardless of whether the employee finds new work. | |||
==== c) Mitigation and Constructive Dismissal ==== | |||
An employee is still required to mitigate his damages if he is constructively dismissed. Sometimes, the employee will be required to mitigate by continuing to work for his current employer. See ''Evans v Teamsters Local Union No. 31'' (2008 SCC 20) for a discussion of the relationship between constructive dismissal and the employee`s duty to mitigate. | |||
There are some circumstances where an employee’s refusal to accept re-employment with the employer who fired him is found to be a failure to mitigate. However, this might not be the case if the trust relationship is eroded as result of the employer’s actions. See ''Fredrickson v. Newtech Dental Laboratory Inc.'', 2015 BCCA 357. | |||
=== 15. Employment Insurance Payback === | === 15. Employment Insurance Payback === | ||
| Line 745: | Line 774: | ||
Prior to terminating an employment contract on the basis of frustration, employers should provide the employee with an opportunity to provide any additional medical information which might change their decision. Failure to do so might result in a finding of without cause dismissal, as opposed to frustration of contract. | Prior to terminating an employment contract on the basis of frustration, employers should provide the employee with an opportunity to provide any additional medical information which might change their decision. Failure to do so might result in a finding of without cause dismissal, as opposed to frustration of contract. | ||
== | == D. Post-Employment Issues == | ||
=== 1. Restrictive Covenants === | === 1. Restrictive Covenants === | ||
| Line 765: | Line 794: | ||
Since the decision of ''Wallace v United Grain Growers'', the view has been that an employer should provide a reference unless they have good reason not to. Failing to provide a reference could be construed by the courts as evidence of bad faith. In practical terms however, there is no way for a former employee to force their employer to provide a suitable reference letter without making some other sort of claim covered by the ''ESA'' or the common law. | Since the decision of ''Wallace v United Grain Growers'', the view has been that an employer should provide a reference unless they have good reason not to. Failing to provide a reference could be construed by the courts as evidence of bad faith. In practical terms however, there is no way for a former employee to force their employer to provide a suitable reference letter without making some other sort of claim covered by the ''ESA'' or the common law. | ||
If an employer tells an employee that they will only receive a reference letter if they resign, in order for the employer to avoid liability for severance payments, the employee may be able to make a claim for both wrongful dismissal and punitive damages (''Vernon v British Columbia (Liquor Distribution Branch)'', 2012 BCSC 133). | If an employer tells an employee that they will only receive a reference letter if they resign, in order for the employer to avoid liability for severance payments, the employee may be able to make a claim for both wrongful dismissal and punitive damages (''Vernon v British Columbia (Liquor Distribution Branch)''), 2012 BCSC 133). | ||
== G. When an employer can sue an employee == | == G. When an employer can sue an employee == | ||
| Line 783: | Line 812: | ||
=== 3. Competition against the employer === | === 3. Competition against the employer === | ||
If an employment contract contains a restrictive covenant (such as a non-competition clause or a non-solicitation clause), see [[{{PAGENAME}}#1. Restrictive Covenants | section IV.F.1: Restrictive Covenants]], above. Employees without a valid non-competition clause (and who are not in a fiduciary position – see [[{{PAGENAME}}#5. Fiduciary duties | section | If an employment contract contains a restrictive covenant (such as a non-competition clause or a non-solicitation clause), see [[{{PAGENAME}}#1. Restrictive Covenants | section IV.F.1: Restrictive Covenants]], above. Employees without a valid non-competition clause (and who are not in a fiduciary position – see [[{{PAGENAME}}#5. Fiduciary duties | section V.E.3: Fiduciary duties]], below) may compete against an employer as soon as they are no longer employed by the employer (''Valley First Financial Services Ltd v Trach'', 2004 BCCA 312). | ||
If an employment contract contains a restrictive covenant (such as a non-competition clause or a non-solicitation clause), see Section V.D.1: Restrictive Covenants, above. | |||
=== 4. Duty not to misuse confidential information === | === 4. Duty not to misuse confidential information === | ||
| Line 795: | Line 826: | ||
Employees who are in a fiduciary relationship to their employer have duties of loyalty, good faith, and avoidance of a conflict of duty and self-interest. They cannot, for example, take advantage of business opportunities that they should have been pursuing for their employer, even if they resign from their position. | Employees who are in a fiduciary relationship to their employer have duties of loyalty, good faith, and avoidance of a conflict of duty and self-interest. They cannot, for example, take advantage of business opportunities that they should have been pursuing for their employer, even if they resign from their position. | ||
F. Other Employment Law Issues | |||
=== 1. Discrimination in Employment === | === 1. Discrimination in Employment === | ||
| Line 825: | Line 853: | ||
Though generally employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees, it is permitted if the discrimination is required due to a bona fide occupational requirement (ss 11, 13). | Though generally employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees, it is permitted if the discrimination is required due to a bona fide occupational requirement (ss 11, 13). | ||
IF it appears that the employee has been discriminated against based on a prohibited ground, see [[Remedies in Employment Law (9:V)#C. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal | Section V.F.1: Discrimination in Employment]] of this chapter for basic information on remedies for discrimination, or see [[BC Human Rights Code (6:III)#C. The Complaint Process | Chapter 6: Human Rights, Section III.C: The Complaint Process]] for more detailed information. | |||
Federally regulated employees are covered by the ''Canadian Human Rights Act''. | Federally regulated employees are covered by the ''Canadian Human Rights Act''. | ||
| Line 835: | Line 863: | ||
Federal equal pay provisions in the ''Canadian Human Rights Act'' are somewhat broader than those found in B.C.’s ''Human Rights Code''. It is discriminatory under the ''Canadian Human Rights Act'' to pay male and female employees different wages where the work that they are doing is of comparatively equal value. This means that even if the work itself is not demonstrably similar, the pay equity provisions may still be enforced if the value of the work is similar. Factors that are considered in determining whether work is of equal value include: skill, efforts and responsibility required, and conditions under which the work is performed (''Canadian Human Rights Act'', s 11(2)). | Federal equal pay provisions in the ''Canadian Human Rights Act'' are somewhat broader than those found in B.C.’s ''Human Rights Code''. It is discriminatory under the ''Canadian Human Rights Act'' to pay male and female employees different wages where the work that they are doing is of comparatively equal value. This means that even if the work itself is not demonstrably similar, the pay equity provisions may still be enforced if the value of the work is similar. Factors that are considered in determining whether work is of equal value include: skill, efforts and responsibility required, and conditions under which the work is performed (''Canadian Human Rights Act'', s 11(2)). | ||
=== | == 2. Harassment in the workplace == | ||
Bullying and harassment in the workplace are developing areas of the law. There are several possible avenues for addressing a complaint in this area if the issue cannot be resolved within the workplace. | |||
Recently, the Workers Compensation Act was amended to cover mental disorders caused by workplace bullying and harassment (''Workers Compensation Act'', RSBC 1996 c 492, s 5.1); [[Introduction to Workers%27 Compensation (7:I) | Chapter 7: Workers’ Compensation]] provides additional information on how to make a claim. | |||
If the bullying or harassment is related to discrimination based on one of prohibited grounds listed in the ''Human Rights Code'', the employee may be able to file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal; see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Chapter 6: Human Rights]] for additional information. | |||
Finally, the bullying or harassment could potentially constitute a constructive dismissal for which the employee could claim damages in court; see V.C.10: Constructive Dismissal. | |||
=== 3. Retaliation for Filing a Complaint === | |||
Generally, employers are not permitted to retaliate against an employee who files a statutory complaint. | Generally, employers are not permitted to retaliate against an employee who files a statutory complaint. | ||
| Line 857: | Line 895: | ||
An employee may face retaliation for bringing an internal complaint, possible through a formal complaint process outlined in an employment policy. If the employer retaliates against the employee in a significant manner, this could constitute a constructive dismissal. In addition, if the employer dismisses the employee following a legitimate complaint, this may form grounds for an aggravated damages claim. | An employee may face retaliation for bringing an internal complaint, possible through a formal complaint process outlined in an employment policy. If the employer retaliates against the employee in a significant manner, this could constitute a constructive dismissal. In addition, if the employer dismisses the employee following a legitimate complaint, this may form grounds for an aggravated damages claim. | ||
=== | === 4. Employees’ Privacy === | ||
==== a) Legislation ==== | ==== a) Legislation ==== | ||
| Line 885: | Line 923: | ||
=== 5. Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements === | === 5. Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements === | ||
Employees often have complaints that their employers is not providing them with their statutory entitlements under the ''Employment Standards Act'', such as a failure to pay overtime wages or vacation pay. See [[{{PAGENAME}}#C. Employment Standards Entitlements | IV.C. Employment Standards Entitlements]] for a discussion on this topic | Employees often have complaints that their employers is not providing them with their statutory entitlements under the ''Employment Standards Act'', such as a failure to pay overtime wages or vacation pay. See [[{{PAGENAME}}#C. Employment Standards Entitlements | IV.C. Employment Standards Entitlements]] for a discussion on this topic. | ||
