Employer Obligations on General Voting Day: 2017 Provincial General Election

April 2017

A Provincial General Election is scheduled to take place in British Columbia on Tuesday, May 9, 2017.

The B.C. Election Act imposes certain obligations on employers to ensure that their employees have sufficient time free from work to exercise their right to vote.

We are publishing this bulletin to help employers understand the scope of their obligations on General Voting Day.

Who can vote in the Provincial General Election?

All Canadian citizens who are at least 18 years old on General Voting Day and have lived in B.C. for six months before election day are eligible to vote in the Provincial General Election.

When are polling stations open on General Voting Day?

Polling stations are open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. PT.

Time off for Voting

Section 74 of the Election Act outlines an employer’s obligations to provide time off for voting. Of particular significance, employers must provide their employees:

  • Four consecutive hours off work. Employees eligible to vote are entitled to four consecutive hours free from work during voting hours on General Voting Day – i.e. between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. PT.
  • Without loss of pay or penalty. An employer may not make any deduction from an employee’s pay or impose any other penalty because he or she took time off to vote. Employees are entitled to their regular compensation for hours not worked because of voting.
  • At a time scheduled by the employer. While an employer must provide its employees with time off work, the employer can choose in its discretion when to provide the four consecutive hours for voting.

Example:

Sam and Toby both work on General Voting Day. Polling stations are open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. PT

Sam works from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The employer must let Sam do one of the following:

  • Start late – 12:00 p.m. or later
  • Leave early – 4:00 p.m. or earlier
  • Take four consecutive hours off work during his scheduled hours

Irrespective of when Sam takes time off for voting, he is entitled to his regular compensation for his full shift

Toby works from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Toby is not entitled to any time off work because he has four consecutive hours free from work for voting – 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.

Employers Operating in a Unionized Environment

Any employer operating in a unionized environment is advised to review all provisions of the applicable collective agreement which speak to obligations on General Voting Day. The employer may have obligations over and above the statutory obligations set out in the Election Act.

Employees Working in a Remote Location

The right to have four consecutive hours off work on General Voting Day without any loss of pay or penalty is not a right available to all employees. An employee who is in a remote location by reason of employment such that he or she would be unable to reasonably reach any voting place during voting hours is not entitled to time off for voting.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

The consequences for an employer of failing to grant time off work for voting can be significant. Failure to comply with section 74 of the Election Act is an offence and, on conviction, the employer may be liable to one or both of the following: a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not longer than one year.

Advance Voting

Any employer anticipating a disruption to its business on General Voting Day can encourage its employees to vote in advance voting. This will be available throughout B.C. from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (local time) on April 29 and 30 and May 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2017. The employer cannot compel its employees to vote on those voting days.

If you have any question at all about how the Provincial General Election may affect you or your workplace, please contact Tamara or James or any other lawyer at Roper Greyell LLP.

Tom Roper Discusses Bullying and Harassment in the Tourism Industry on CBC Radio

February 2017

WorkSafeBC receives the greatest number of workplace bullying and harassment enquires from the hospitality industry. Tom Roper discusses the extent of the issue on CBC Radio.

Listen here for On the Coast interview.
Listen here for All Points West interview.

 

Roper Greyell Welcomes New Partner, Ryan Copeland

January 2017

We are pleased to welcome Ryan Copeland to the partnership.

Ryan’s unique background guides his approach to workplace law. He has been a construction worker, a tree feller and while in university, he managed and led a 20-person forest firefighting crew. “My past experience has taught me how to adapt and respond to a variety of dynamic and changing circumstances on the job,” says Copeland. “Those skills are valuable assets in guiding clients through the complex world of workplace law. I enjoy analyzing all possible solutions and working alongside my clients to determine the best direction.”

Ryan provides advice to both public and private sector clients on matters such as harassment, absenteeism, health and safety, workplace policies and employment contracts. He also helps clients navigate through the courts, labour arbitrations, labour boards, human rights and WorkSafeBC tribunals.

“We look forward to the continued insight and fresh perspective Ryan brings to Roper Greyell,” says Tom Roper, Roper Greyell’s Chair. “Our focus is helping our lawyers grow. When they grow, we grow and our firm is able to build on the kind of sound advice our clients have come to expect. By developing the skills and talents of our people we can meet the exacting needs of our clients in a rapidly changing employment landscape.”

Ryan joined the firm in 2008 as an associate and as he moves into his new role he will continue to build on the firm’s commitment to provide clients with the highest quality legal representation and strategic advice in all areas of workplace law.

Employment Insurance Changes Coming

December 2016

Effective January 1, 2017, changes are coming to the Employment Insurance (“EI”) scheme that will reduce the waiting period for EI benefits from two weeks to one week.

This change will apply to regular and special benefits, including pregnancy, parental, compassionate care, and sickness benefits. The total number of weeks of available benefits is not impacted by the legislative changes.

The reduction in the waiting period may have an impact on employers who offer supplemental or top-up payments that coordinate with EI pregnancy, parental, sickness, or other special benefits. The change may also affect employers whose disability benefits are payable only after employees have exhausted all available EI sickness benefits.

If you require assistance regarding the impact of these legislative changes on your workplace or any workplace policies or benefit plans, please contact us.

Roper Greyell Featured on BCBusiness.ca

October 2016

James D. Kondopulos highlights five critical mistakes to avoid in the lead-up to labour arbitration. For more details, please read our article on BCBusiness.ca or click here to register for our 2016 Labour Arbitration Update.

Roper Greyell Welcomes New Associate, Tamara Navaratnam

September 2016

Roper Greyell is pleased to welcome new associate Tamara Navaratnam to the firm.

Tamara graduated from the Juris Doctor program at the University of Victoria in May 2015. During her time in law school, Tamara volunteered with Pro Bono Students Canada as a Tenancy Advocate. She spent her final semester abroad studying at the National University of Singapore.

Prior to joining Roper Greyell, Tamara articled at a large regional firm in Vancouver.

Pro Bono Going Public 2016

September 2016

In September, over 100 lawyers will provide free legal advice in New Westminster, Vancouver, Kelowna and Victoria to raise awareness and funds for BC’s pro bono programs.

On September 9th, our own Gregory J. Heywood, Julie Menten and Christopher Munroe participated in Access Pro Bono Going Public 2016 at Victory Square Park in Vancouver.

We are proud to have raised over $9,000 to support Access Pro Bono programs across the province.

To read more about Access Pro Bono Going Public 2016 click here.

 

 

BC Government Expands Employment Standards Exemption for Accountants

July 2016

Effective July 19, 2016, the BC Government has expanded the exemption for accountants from the Employment Standards Act to cover all professional accountants now practicing as Chartered Professional Accountants (CPAs) or enrolled as CPA students. Previously, only the minority of accountants holding the predecessor designation of Chartered Accountant (CA) were exempt while the larger group of accountants holding the predecessor CMA and CGA designations enjoyed full protection under the ESA.  This change means that, in B.C., both accountants working in accounting firms and the larger number of accountants working in industry are not entitled to any of the basic employment rights protected by the Employment Standards Act. These range from the minimum wage to vacation, statutory holiday, overtime and termination pay, as well as statutory leaves such as maternity leave.  Employers who currently provide ESA-based terms of employment to their accountants will no doubt continue to do so, but have greater flexibility in setting employer policies. Because changing some employment policies may have legal implications, employers should get legal advice before making any changes to take advantage of this expanded flexibility.  Employers should be aware that other provinces such as Ontario offer much more limited exemptions from hours of work and overtime employment standards only.

Supreme Court Confirms Canada Labour Code Unjust Dismissal Procedure Available to Federally-Regulated Employees, Even When Severance Is Paid

July 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29,  that for federal sector employers, employees may claim “unjust dismissal” under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) and obtain remedies including reinstatement with back pay even where the employer is not asserting just cause for “firing” the employee and has offered or paid contractual severance.

A limited number of businesses in Canada are covered by the federal CLC rather than provincial employment laws. Most are either federal Crown corporations or involved in aboriginal government, banking, telecommunications, television, aviation or inter-provincial or international communications or transportation.  Since 1978 the CLC has included a right for dismissed non-union federally-regulated employees with at least 12 months of service to make a complaint of “unjust dismissal” within 90 days of the dismissal.  If a complaint is successful, an adjudicator has broad discretion to order a variety of remedies, including monetary damages and reinstatement.  A dismissal will not be found “unjust” where the employee was terminated for just cause and the remedy is not available in certain situations, such as where the termination is due to the discontinuance of a job or layoff for lack of work or where the employee has another remedy available (e.g. a discrimination complaint).  In the original court decision in Wilson, the Federal Court had ruled that the unjust dismissal remedy should not be available where the employer terminated without cause and offered contractual severance.

The court confirmed that the intent of Parliament in enacting the unjust dismissal provisions of the CLC was to provide non-union federally-regulated employees with protection against dismissal without cause similar to that enjoyed by unionized employees. Accordingly, the offer or payment of severance, however generous and whether or not it satisfies common law contractual notice or severance entitlements, does not make a dismissal “just” and deprive a dismissed employee from seeking a remedy under the CLC.

While this case has attracted a lot of attention, the decision actually confirms a long line of adjudicator and federal court decisions prior to Wilson, and therefore the result is not surprising.  It is important for employers to remember that a dismissed employee only has 90 days to make an unjust dismissal complaint.  Also, an employer can (and should) insist on a release of all claims, including unjust dismissal, as part of a negotiated severance package.  Further, a dismissal due to the discontinuance of a position or layoff cannot be challenged as “unjust” under the CLC.

The purpose of this update is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of Roper Greyell LLP or any member of the firm on the points of law discussed. Interested parties are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on the text of this bulletin.

 

Canada Pension Plan Changes Coming

June 2016

The provinces and federal government have reached an agreement in principle to make changes to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). The changes will be phased in over several years starting on January 1, 2019.  A brief summary of the changes is as follows:

1. by the end of 2023, CPP contributions will rise by 1% (to 5.95% of pensionable earnings) for both employers and employees;

2. by the end of 2025, the upper limit of pensionable earnings will increase in increments from the current $54,900 (in 2016) to $82,700; and

3. income replacement benefits will increase from one-quarter (25%) to one-third (33%) of pensionable earnings or from the current maximum of $13,110 to approximately $27,000 per annum.

The amount of the premium increase is relatively modest and will be phased in over five years. Employers should start budgeting for this increase in premiums and reviewing whether they should adjust their retirement contributions to reflect this cost and the corresponding increase in employee’s CPP pension benefits.  For Ontario employers, the CPP agreement means Ontario will not proceed with its much more costly Ontario Retirement Pension Plan legislation according to the Ontario government. Quebec, which has long operated its own separate Quebec Pension Plan in lieu of CPP plans to make its own enhancements later.

The purpose of this update is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of Roper Greyell LLP or any member of the firm on the points of law discussed. Interested parties are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on the text of this bulletin.

1 11 12 13 14