Equal Pay for Part Time Work begins April 1, 2018

For Ontario employers, employing part time and temporary workers is about to become a lot more expensive. On April 1, 2018, the “equal pay for equal work” amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2002 (the “ESA”) by Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act 2017, come into legal effect.

Ontario employees have long had the protection of the Pay Equity Act, and similar provisions in the ESA, that prevented women (and men too) from being paid less than their peers on the basis of sex. As of April 1, 2018, the ESA will now provide for an entitlement for equal pay from an employer regardless of a difference in employment status.

“Difference in employment status”, in respect of one or more employees, will now be defined as:

a difference in the number of hours regularly worked by the employees; or a difference in the term of their employment, including a difference in permanent, temporary, seasonal or casual status

As a result, employers will be required to pay casual, temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees the same rate as permanent and full time employees so long as:

  • they perform substantially the same kind of work in the same establishment;
  • their performance requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility; and
  • their work is performed under similar working conditions.

The legislature has attempted to define “substantially the same” to mean “substantially the same but not necessarily identical.” How this will be interpreted by the Ontario Courts is anyone’s guess but likely it will be used to grant discretion to the Tribunal, Judge or Jury on whether two similar jobs are “substantially the same”.

Exceptions

Differences in pay between employees of different sex or similar employment status are permitted so long as the difference in rate of pay is the result of:

  • a seniority system – a system that pays employee based on length of service;
  • a merit system – a system that pays employees based on merit: their skills, education, competence, etcetera;
  • a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production – a piecemeal system or similar; or
  • any other factor other than sex or employment status.

Employers should be careful to ensure that any system they are using to determine employee pay is being implemented fairly and communicated to employees in advance. Any measurements of quantity or quality should to the greatest extent possible be objective and recorded.

The Process

Any employee who believes that their rate of pay does not comply with the Equal Pay for Equal Work section of the ESA, may request a review from their employer. Employers are, thereafter, required to either:

  • Adjust the employee’s pay; or
  • Provide a written response setting out the reasons for refusing.

As discussed in my article Important Upcoming Changes to the Ontario Workplace, any written response must be saved according to the new record keeping requirements in the ESA for five (5) years.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract puts the Breaks on the Uber Class Action in Ontario

The Ontario Court has confirmed that an arbitration clause in an employment contract is generally enforceable.

Much to the chagrin of Mr. Heller and his lawyers in the proposed class action brought against Uber, Justice Perell of Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the lawsuit against Uber. As a result, Uber drivers in Ontario that want to sue for their rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2002 will need to do so by way of Arbitration in the Netherlands.

In the lawsuit of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Heller, the proposed class plaintiff for Uber drivers across Ontario, sued Uber for a finding that they were employees, not independent contractors. If correct, then Uber drivers would be entitled to all the benefits granted to employees under the Employment Standards Act. Uber brought a motion to stay the action in Ontario—effectively ending the law suit—on the basis that when Uber drivers signed up on the “Uber App”, they clicked accept to a long list of terms and conditions that included the following clause:

Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, excluding its rules on the conflict of laws. The Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods 1980 (CISG) shall not apply. Any dispute, conflict or controversy, howsoever arising out of or broadly in connection with or relating to this Agreement, including relating to its validity, its construction or its enforceability, shall be first mandatorily submitted to mediation proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce Mediation Rules (“ICC Mediation Rules”). If such a dispute has not been settled within sixty (60) days after a request for mediation has been submitted under such ICC Mediation Rules, such dispute can be referred to and shall be exclusively and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Arbitration Rules”) …. The Place of the arbitration shall be Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

After finding that the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, applies the Court considered:

  1. Whether the Competence-Competence Principle applied? or
  2. Whether there was some other reason to refuse to send the matter to arbitration.

The Competence-Competence principle holds that in general “a challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be first resolved by the arbitrator.” The Court found that this principle did apply and that there were no exception to rely on that would benefit Mr. Heller. The Court held that the arbitration provision was not illegal for being unconscionable.

In short, Mr. Heller’s argument was summarized as follows:

it would be an absurd result and contrary to public policy to enforce an arbitration agreement in an employment contract and thereby deny vulnerable non-unionized employees their rights and protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which precludes employees contracting out of their rights under the Act.

The Court reasoned that it was their role to interpret statute and not enact it and the Employment Standards Act does not, unlike the Consumer Protection Act, preclude arbitration clauses. Therefore, the Court held that the class action lawsuit should be stayed as a result of the arbitration clause in the employment contract, “be the result absurd public policy or not.”

What is the take away?

The decision of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2018 ONSC 718, confirms that Arbitration clauses in employment agreements are generally enforceable.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

How quickly must I sue after being fired?

The limitation period for Ontario Employment Law disputes is governed by the Limitations Act, 2002. Under the Limitations Act all wrongful dismissal claims must be brought with in 2 years of the date the claim was discovered. Discovery has a very specific meaning:

Discovery
5 (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,

(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,

(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,

(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,

(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and

(iv) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it; and

(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).

If a claim is not brought within the limitation period than in almost all circumstances the employee forever loses the opportunity to sue for wrongful dismissal or termination pay.

Limitation Period for Wrongful Dismissal Claims

In the employment law contact, the recent case of Bailey v Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., 2017 ONSC 1789, states:

[44] The leading case in Ontario on the commencement of the limitation period in a wrongful dismissal action is Jones v. Friedman, 2006 CanLII 580 (ON CA) (“Jones (CA)”). In that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal held at para. 4 as follows:

A limitation period commences when the cause of action arises. In a breach of contract, the cause of action arises when the contract was breached. For the purposes of a wrongful dismissal action, the employment contract is breached when the employer dismisses the employee without reasonable notice

In ordinary circumstances this means that a wrongful termination claim is discovered on the date the employee first receives notice of termination. Not the date that the employee’s employment ended.

While there are some dissenting cases, such as the decision of Justice Pitt in Webster v Almore Trading & Manufacturing Co, 2010 ONSC 3854, it would be prudent for any lawyer or plaintiff to ensure that their wrongful dismissal lawsuits are started within two years of notice of termination.

Although there is an argument to be made that the limitation period should not start until after notice is given, you do not want to be in a position where you have to make that argument before a Judge.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.