Canadian Employment Law Today

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian www.employmentlawtoday.com September 28, 2016 AODA update: Changes and challenges New changes recently in force redefi ne the sizes of Ontario organizations and their compliance requirements BY MADELEINE LOEWENBERG IS YOUR ONTARIO organization a large one or a small one? For the purposes of On- tario's Accessibility for Ontarians with Dis- abilities Act (AODA), you'd better be sure. On July 1, 2016, a number of amendments to the AODA came into force. First, the Accessibility Standards for Cus- tomer Service and the Integrated Accessi- bility Standards, two regulations enacted under the AODA, are now consolidated into a single regulation. e regulation keeps the name Integrated Accessibil- ity Standards. Ontario employers will need only to consult the new Integrated Acces- sibility Standards to determine their AODA obligations. Second, the defi nitions of a "large orga- nization" and a "small organization" are clarifi ed. A "large organization" has at least 50 employees. A "small organization" has more than one but fewer than 50 employ- ees. e minimum 20-employee threshold, applicable to some obligations in the for- mer Accessibility Standards for Customer Service is revoked, except with respect to accessibility reports. e change brings clarity as to which or- ganizations are "large" and "small. Presum- ably, more employers will now fall within the defi nition of a "small organization" and will see their responsibilities under the AODA lessened — such as fewer em- ployers will have to prepare written docu- ments describing its policies. Arguably, the change refl ects a recognition that "small organizations" were defi ned too narrowly at only 20 employees, although a 50-person workplace hardly seems "large" by most Hearsay without real evidence not enough to justify chef 's dismissal Employer took co-worker's suspicions of unsanitary conduct too seriously without a comprehensive investigation BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ARBITRATOR has reinstated a British Co- lumbia employee who was fi red for urinating in a food preparation area after the employer failed to prove the employee actually did it. e 62-year-old employee was hired by a su- permarket in September 2012 to be a barbecue chef in the supermarket's restaurant area. He cut and marinated meat for barbecuing as well as barbecuing meat himself for customers. Part of his work area included a cooler — a small room where meat products were kept refrigerated. On one side of the cooler was a large double- basin stainless steel sink with a tap in the middle and a sprayer. e chef used this sink — which was in front of the cooler door — to thaw meat products and marinate pork, ribs, chicken and duck in bowls. On Sept. 16, 2015, a co-worker came over to Rude comment, alcohol on breath justifi es suspension, not termination pg.3 Multiple instances of alcohol-related misconduct CREDIT: NILOO/SHUTTERSTOCK Advertising guidelines for foreign workers in the spotlight pg. 4 Federal Court's quashing of application refusal highlights inconsistencies in how job advertising requirements are evaluated ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Off-duty conduct: When should an employer take action? INCREASE on page 7 » CO-WORKER'S on page 6 » with Colin Gibson

• Cover