Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Bill 68: When Did Discouraging Workers to File ESA Complaints Become Public Policy in Ontario?

by David Doorey August 16, 2010
written by David Doorey August 16, 2010

I’m back from summer break, and I’m having deja vu.  Have you heard about this new Ontario Bill 68?  Here’s a story from the Toronto Star describing it.
Those of us who lived through the exciting days of the Mike Harris “common sense revolution” got used to government double-speak in the names of legislation.  Who can forget the “Tenant Protection Act”, which gutted tenant’s rights?  In labour law, the main legislation that targeted labour rights was called, “An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations” (see Minister of Labour Elizabeth Witmer’s introduction of that law here)  The Tories also thought that making employment standards negotiable and flexible was a good way to promote business.  So they introduced laws that allowed employees to “bargain” away their rights to overtime pay, for example.
Now the Liberals are borrowing from the book of Harris by pushing through an omni-bus bill called “The Act to Promote Ontario as Open for Business by Amending Certain Acts and Regulations”, or the Open for Business Act, for short.  Oh brother, that sort of language usually means trouble for workers.  The changes include revisions to the Employment Standards Act that the government says will “would encourage employers and employees to settle disputes at an early stage, avoiding unnecessary costs for both parties…and allowing employment standards officers to focus on the current backlog of claims”.
Under Section 96.1 (see page 130 of the Bill, linked above), a complaint by an employee will not be processed by the Ministry until the employee has first demanded compliance with the ESA directly from the employer.  In other words, the legislation creates new procedural loopholes for workers to jump through to recover their entitlements under the ESA.  It forces employees to beg their employers to comply with the law before the government will get involved in enforcing the legislation.
How will this “encourage early settlements”?
It’s not clear to me.   Keep this in mind:  the vast majority of ESA complaints are filed by workers who have already quit or been fired by the employer (ex-employees).  The Arthurs commission pegged the number at 93% of all complaints in the Federal sector filed by ex-employees, and Professor Mark Thomas found that 90% of complaints under the Ontario ESA are filed by ex-employees (see Regulating Flexibility, p. 104).   The reason is that non-union workers, sensibly, are concerned about challenging their existing employers directly, so they wait until they are no longer dependent on the employer before they complain.  So we are mostly talking about complaints filed by ex-employees.
Now, I suspect a lot of these workers already do ask the employer to comply with the legislation before they go through the hassle of filing a complaint, but I don’t have any stats on that (nor do I suspect the Liberals have any reliable evidence on this point). Most of these workers will not be aware of the new requirement to first beg the employer to comply with the law before filing a complaint.  So they will file a complaint without making any reference to their attempt to get the employer to comply, and the complaint will be rejected on this ground.  Some workers might not understand what is required of them, or get frustrated, and just give up.  That would certainly reduce the number of cases the Ministry is dealing with, but wouldn’t encourage early settlements.  It would just allow law-breaking employers to avoid liability.  I suspect the Liberals are content with that outcome, because they are mostly concerned with dealing with the case backlog, not with ensuring compliance with the ESA.
Alternatively, some complainants will go through the silly exercise of  refiling the form this time including a description of how they asked the employer to comply and nothing happened, or if they had not previously asked, they will call their ex-employer and ask them to comply. The ex-employer may or not comply.  If the employer doesn’t comply, the  complainant can refile the complaint, this time indicating to the Minister that they asked their ex-employer to comply and the employer ignored their request, told them to “go to hell”,  or disputed the claim.  Then the usual process would begin and an ESO would be assigned.  Again, how does introducing this extra procedural hurdle–for the employee to challenge the employer directly before filing a complaint–encourage early settlement or advance the purpose of the legislation, which is to protect vulnerable workers by ensuring them a basic level of workplace standards?
Under the existing model, an employee files a complaint and it goes to the employer.  If upon seeing a valid complaint, the employer admits it made a mistake, a decent employer will just pay up, with little or no involvement by the state.  Bad employers won’t pay, and the state then needs to interject.  All of that remains true under the new model.  I anticipate that the only effect of this change will be discourage some employees from pursuing their ESA entitlements because they fear directly challenging an employer, or because they don’t understand the procedural requirements.
That’s a good outcome if the goal is to reduce the number of complaints under the ESA, but a stupid outcome if the goal is to improve compliance with the legislation.
Do you think forcing employees to ask their employers to comply with their legal obligations as a precondition of processing an ESA complaint is good public policy?  What outcome will it produce, if any?

4 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Summer Break
next post
Banks on International Labour Law and Trade Agreements

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
15h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
15h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
16h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.