Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian Employment Law Today | 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 More Cases staggered times. Krausz rejected it, saying his schedule allowed students who work in the day a better chance of attending. e faculty dean came up with a com- promise that allowed Soprovich to have her afternoon classes end earlier. However, the incident and Krausz's behaviour affected Soprovich and she spoke with an HR repre- sentative about workplace bullying. More complaints e HR department received an informal complaint from the campus education counsellor, Curtis Colgrave, who had come into conflict with Krausz over adding math and science courses to boost enrolment. Colgrave said Krausz had made a comment at a meeting that senior staff at the Na- naimo campus were asking how many staff were working in Powell River given the low enrolment. Krausz also persisted with the issue when it had already been decided by the majority not to add courses at that time. e faculty dean heard other complaints about how Krausz treated people, including reducing staff members to tears and acting disrespectful towards colleagues. In June 2016, the HR department recom- mended termination of Krausz's employ- ment, but the faculty dean decided to give him a letter of expectation indicating he needed to change his behaviour and com- munication style. e letter listed instances of inappropriate verbal communication with and treatment of co-workers and stat- ed he must follow the university's respectful workplace and harassment policies. Krausz asked the dean what impact the letter would have on his probationary period, but the dean replied he had already passed probation. e dean had no recollection saying this. Krausz stepped down as ABE chair, but was given the role of curriculum developer. He continued his campaign to add math and science courses, but he didn't receive sup- port. He sent a series of long emails to ad- ministrators expressing his displeasure, in- cluding a suggestion that he focus on the ABE program as a "veiled threat of retribution." e faculty dean learned of the emails and determined Krausz wouldn't change his ways, even after the letter of expectation. On Sept. 1, 2016, the university terminated his employment, as it had decided he was unsuitable for the position. Krausz disputed that he was a probation- ary employee, as he claimed the dean had told him he was no longer on probation. e union also argued that even if Krausz was still on probation, the university didn`t have cause to dismiss as it failed to warn Krausz that his job was in jeopardy — the letter of expectation was non-disciplinary. Determined employee was unsuitable e arbitrator didn't believe Krausz's as- sertion that the faculty dean had told him his probationary period was over. e col- lective agreement expressly provided for a one-year probationary period, which meant Krausz's went to September 2016. In ad- dition, the union chair who attended the meeting didn't note any such decision and there was no documentation of it. Krausz had not passed his probation and wasn't subject to the just-cause protection of a reg- ular employee, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator also found that collabora- tion was important between the staff in the Powell River ABE program, as it was small and resources were shared. "Communica- tion and collegiality was critical" and well- established, but Krausz's conduct towards the instructors and other staff damaged workplace relationships and caused poten- tial problems with the program. In addition, Krausz sought to deflect responsibility from himself for the damage, even though he "was at the epicentre of these problematic relationships," the arbitrator said. In addition, while the letter of expectation wasn't disciplinary, it outlined what was ex- pected of Krausz, but Krausz continued to display the same behaviour. is gave the university enough to determine he wasn't suitable for employment, said the arbitrator. "(Krausz) was being told his communica- tions with others was not satisfactory and he was basically being told to change his behav- iour," the arbitrator said in dismissing the grievance and upholding Krausz's dismissal. "If (Krausz) concluded that this did not con- stitute a caution to the effect that his con- tinued employment was under threat if he chose not to comply with the direction giv- en, he did so at his own peril." See Vancouver Island University and BCGEU (Krausz), Re, 2018 CarswellBC 3527 (B.C. Arb.). Behaviour continued « from DISRESPECTFUL on page 1 dominately female job classes." e statute applies to federal employers with ten or more employees. Bill C-86 received Royal Assent Dec. 13. e effective date will be announced by order of the Governor in Council. A major legislative event is pending federally: modernization of the Cana- da Labour Code. e Minister of Employ- ment, Workforce Development and Labour was instructed to update the Canada La- bour Code, and has indicated that legisla- tion will be introduced by Labour Day 2019. Proposals will likely focus on restoring work-life balance and providing better pro- tections to part-time, temporary, and con- tract workers. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and On- tario Human Rights Tribunal rendered important decisions regarding what does, and does not, constitute human rights discrimination. Two 2018 deci- sions resolving disability and age-related claims provided insight into the types of conduct that rise to the level of prohibited employment discrimination. In Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal), the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that administrators of em- ployee group benefit plans have discretion to set limits on plan coverage and that denial of medical cannabis coverage does not con- stitute discrimination against an employee "based on" disability. e employer's plan did not cover medical cannabis because it was not approved by Health Canada. ere was no connection between the employee's disability and the decision to deny coverage. In May 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal declared in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, that s. 25(2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which allowed employers to terminate employee benefits at age 65, was unconstitutional as a prima facie violation of s. 15 of the charter which protects every Canadian's right to be treated equally under the law and prohibits discrimination based on age. For more information see: • A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Ltd. 2018 HRTO 107 (Ont. Human Rights Trib.). • G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour, 2018 HRTO 201 • Nemeth v. Hatch, 2018 CarswellOnt 142 (Ont. C.A.). • Amberber v. IBM Canada, 2018 Car- swellOnt 10197 (Ont. C.A.). • Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Com- pensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 Car- swellNS 158 (N.S. C.A.). • Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 CarswellOnt 8879 (Ont. Hu- man Rights Trib.). George Vassos is a partner with Littler LLP in Toronto, practicing on a wide variety of labour and employment law issues. He can be reached at (647) 256- 4504 or gvassos@littler.com. Rhonda Levy is knowledge management counsel for Littler LLP in Canada, monitoring legislative, regulatory and caselaw de- velopments. She can be reached at (647) 256-4545 or rlevy@littler.com. Human rights, pay equity, work-life balance key elements « from TOP 10 on page 3

• Cover