CANADIAN EMPLOYMENT LAW TODAY
Published by Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 3
Priority Service Code: 13-77EL
March 31 – April 4, 2014
Osgoode Professional Development, Downtown Toronto
The Osgoode &HUWLoFDWHLQ
+XPDQ5LJKWV7KHRU\DQG3UDFWLFH
CLE
Day 1: +XPDQ5LJKWV7KHRU\DQG3UDFWLFH
Day 2: 'XW\WR$FFRPRGDWH'HDOLQJZLWK&RPSHWLQJ5LJKWV
Day 3: (YLGHQFHLQ+XPDQ5LJKWV0DWWHUV
Day 4: (YLGHQFHLQ+XPDQ5LJKWV0DWWHUV&RQW
G5HPHGLHV
Day 5: $GYDQFHG7RSLFVLQ+XPDQ5LJKWV/DZ 3UDFWLFH
3URJUDP'LUHFWRU3DWULFN&DVHAssistant Professor, University of Guelph
Adjunct Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HHSOXV+67
,QTXLUHDERXWJURXSGLVFRXQWVoQDQFLDODLGDQG&3'FUHGLWV.
7R5HJLVWHUwww.osgoodepd.ca, 2U&DOO416.597.9724 or 1.888.923.3394
2U(PDLOopd-registration@osgoode.yorku.ca
Osgoode Professional Development, 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2600, Toronto
This unique, comprehensive and in-depth program will give you the knowledge
DQGSUDFWLFDOVNLOOVWRFRPSHWHQWO\DQGFRQoGHQWO\KDQGOHGD\WRGD\
challenges as well as more complex human rights issues.
Harassment complaint can't face
reprisal: Ontario Labour Board
Board rejects earlier decision that health and safety legislation
doesn't protect employees from reprisals for harassment complaints
| BY ANDREW EBEJER |
WHEN BILL 168 came into force in 2010,
Ontario employers were required under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act
(OHSA) to devise, post, and implement a
workplace harassment policy and work-
place violence policy.
While Bill 168 specifi ed an employer
had a duty to take every reasonable
precaution to protect its workers from
workplace violence, the extent of an
employer's obligations with respect to
workplace harassment remained murky.
A recent Ontario Labour Relations Board
decision — Ljuboja v. Aim Group Inc.
and General Motors of Canada Ltd. —
has clarifi ed this lingering ambiguity.
Peter Ljuboja was employed by Aim
Group, a staffi ng agency based in Lon-
don, Ont., and placed in a managerial
position at a General Motors plant. One
evening, as a consequence of being un-
derstaffed, Ljuboja reassigned a relief
worker to the assembly line — leaving
no one available to stand in when other
workers took a washroom break. Ja-
mie Rice, one of Ljuboja's supervisors,
chided Ljuboja about this reassignment
during an end-of-shift meeting. While
Rice was alleged to have "screamed"
and sworn at Ljuboja, there was no al-
legation he threatened or attempted to
exercise physical force. During a meeting
the following day, Rice accused Ljuboja
of having an attitude problem and incit-
ing a fi ght.
Ljuboja reported the incident to GM's
HR department and his employment was
terminated shortly thereafter.
Ljuboja argued his dismissal violated
s. 50(1) of the OHSA, which prohibits a
reprisal by an employer against a worker
for exercising or enforcing a right under
the act. Aim Group and GM relied on ear-
lier labour board decisions to argue that
Continued on page 8
The employee reported
the incident of his supervisor
screaming and swearing
at him. He was terminated
shortly thereafter.
