Canadian Employment Law Today

amendments to the province's Employment Standards Act, 2000 and Labour Relations Act, 1995, those that interpret the legisla- tion as carte blanche to immediately roll back employee entitlements to pre-Bill 148 levels should think twice. Doing so could invite constructive dismissal claims because employees could reasonably argue that such a swift change in entitlements is tantamount to termination. Wage rollback difficult One employer group facing the most sig- nificant risk are those that had already in- creased their minimum hourly wage to $15 per hour to ensure future compliance with Bill 148, and who might attempt to roll it back to $14 now that Bill 47 has frozen the provincial minimum at the lower rate. Or- ganizations that rely on a varied workforce are also exposed. Bill 148 introduced strict new employment status and equal pay for equal work provisions for part-time and temporary workers to ensure they would be paid the same as their permanent, full- time colleagues. Organizations that had already reworked their pay scales to com- ply with the new law, but then attempt to decrease those wages, are at risk. No matter the situation, organizations should act now to amend their employee policies and procedures to reflect the chang- es contained in Bill 47. But they should also think strategically before taking action. ose that moved forward in compliance with Bill 148 have the option of honouring those changes. Why? Put simply, rolling back entitlements can be a morale killer, can lead to spikes in employee disengage - ment and turnover, and can hinder an orga- nization's ability to attract and retain talent, particularly at a time of near-historic lows in unemployment. Even if they do decide to roll back wages, an employer could pro - vide employees with extra paid vacation or personal days as a good-faith gesture. Do- ing so could help position as an employer of choice if the move is communicated effec- tively — "We're not doing this because we have to, but because we value our employ- ees and want to provide compensation that reflects their hard work and dedication to the ongoing success of the business" — and is perhaps leveraged as a greater package of employee-friendly initiatives. Conversely, if employers elect not to roll back the Bill 148 entitlements, they may im - plement changes by obtaining consent from employees and providing consideration for the changes, or by severing the employment agreement with reasonable notice and en- tering into a new employment agreement, as outlined above. With some creativity and a proactive ap- proach, it's entirely possible to turn potential constructive dismissal risk into an opportu- nity to attract, retain and engage workers. But employers are wise to remember that doing so takes a strategic plan that not only accounts for the flurry of recent employ - ment law changes, but also the unique char- acteristics of the workplace in question. For more information see: • Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd., 2008 CarswellOnt 2350 (Ont. C.A.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 March 6, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: DESIGNER491/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Seth Holland Seth Holland is a lawyer at Williams HR Law in Markham, Ont., where he practices in all areas of management-side labour, employment, and human rights law. He can be reached at (905) 205-0496 or sholland@williamshrlaw.com.

• Cover