Follow Me on Twitter

NEW: The Bad Employer Sunshine List

Poor compliance with employment standards legislation is a huge and systemic problem in both Canada and the United States. As my friend and mentor Harry Arthurs likes to say: “Law is what Law Does“. In other words, an employment standards law means little if employers can ignore it with impunity. Yet that is what often happens in Canada.  The “law on the books” may have little resemblance to practices on the workplace floor.

Arthurs found in his report Fairness at Work that “25% of all federal employers were not in compliance with most obligations under [the Federal employment standards' law], and that 75% of these employers were not in compliance with at least one provision [of the legislation].” Since these numbers were based on employer “self-reporting”, Arthurs noted, they were likely to actually understate non-compliance levels.

Employment standards are there to protect the most vulnerable of workers. These are usually nonunion workers, since we know empirically that unions are very good at ensuring their members receive at least their employment standards. Nonunion employees lack an independent advocate in most cases, and often lack information about employment standards and how to enforce them.  They depend upon the employer to act responsibly and comply with the law. Many employers do.  Sadly, many do not.

Transparency and Employment Regulation

The Liberal government in Ontario has in recent years promoted transparency as one tool in encouraging greater compliance with the ESA.  I’m a fan of transparency in employment law, as some of my publications would indicate. The Ontario government publishes all convictions under the ESA on its website, which is a nice touch.  It has the right to do this because the Liberals recently added Section 138.1 to the ESA.  That section says this:

138.1 (1) If a person, including an individual, is convicted of an offence under this Act, the Director may publish or otherwise make available to the general public the name of the person, a description of the offence, the date of the conviction and the person’s sentence.

Internet publication

(2) Authority to publish under subsection (1) includes authority to publish on the Internet

The Bad Employer List

There is now a growing list of irresponsible, bad Ontario employers on the list of the convicted.   To help spread the government’s word about these bad employers, I am starting a new monthly feature: The Bad Employer Sunshine List. I will add the list to my Pages on the top of the Blog.  Of course, employers convicted of ESA violations are only a very small subset of  employers who violate statutes and employment contracts–many employees never file complaints, and of the meritorious complaints that are filed, many would be resolved long before the state would obtain a conviction.  But this is a start towards shining a spotlight on irresponsible employers.

Is your employer on the list?  Are you thinking of applying to work for one of these bad employers?   The information provided here may be relevant to your decisions.

In this first edition of the Bad Employer Sunshine List I will link only to the latest list (from August 2011).  For an archive list of previous months, go here. From now on, I will post new Bad Employers as the lists are published.  Bad employers remain published for one year from their conviction.

August 2011 Bad Employers

Some Notable Bad Employers this month:

East Side Marios;  Swiss Chalet/Harveys;  The Dragon Bistro;  The Horseshoe Tavern (NOO!); Petsmart;  Old Mill Cadillac; Golf Town; Howard Johnson; Kitchen Stuff; Wild Wing;  Golden Griddle;  Coffee Time; E.B. Box Company;  Addison Chevrolet Buick; Pizza Nova

Socialize

3 Responses to NEW: The Bad Employer Sunshine List

  1. Mike Belmore Reply

    November 8, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    This is a fabulous idea. The MOL should publish all the names of all convicted employers in the major dailies once a month.

    One problem here is that a number of the employers on your list are corporate franchise names, and the offences were likely committed by individual franchisees. (Correct me if I’m wrong). It would be nice to shine a light on the individuals responsible. Then again, perhaps this sort of bad publicity could encourage franchisors to better police their franchisees or even include “bad boss” penalty clauses in their franchise agreements.

  2. Kellie Reply

    January 12, 2012 at 2:03 am

    I also wondered about the fact that a couple of businesses on the list are franchises – but as a franchise – don’t they provide HR support? If so, then it would make sense that the company name should be listed.

    This is a great idea – this should be done for all provinces!

    Thanks for the list Dave.

    • Doorey Reply

      January 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm

      Kellie, my view on the franchise issue is that the Franchisor needs to be aggressive about requiring the Franchisee to learn and comply with employment laws, since the franchise suffers as a whole from negative publicity like this. If a Franchisor can regulate the heat of milk, uniforms, amount of ingredients used, signage, etc, etc, then they can also insist on tight compliance with laws. Just watch how active the Franchisors get in terms of employee relations when workers at a franchise begin union organizing drives…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>