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)
COVID-19Employment RegulationHealth and SafetyHuman RightsImmigrationMigrant WorkersOntarioStudent Post

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers During COVID-19 and Lessons Learned

by Justine Wong February 3, 2021
written by Justine Wong February 3, 2021

Written by Justine Wong, 3L, University of Ottawa Law

The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) recently found that employer Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc. dismissed migrant worker Gabriel Flores from its crop farm after he spoke out against COVID-19 concerns regarding the farm’s living and working conditions. The decision is called Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.(0987-20-UR). The dismissal raises concerns about working conditions in the COVID-19 pandemic especially for labour groups like migrant workers who depend on their employers to provide proper living conditions as well. COVID-19 exacerbates the employer-employee power imbalance that results from having to rely on the employer for living accommodations which can make raising concerns contentious.

In Flores’ case, 190 Scotlynn workers tested COVID-19 positive after sharing poor living conditions in company bunkhouses that did not allow workers to maintain a safe distance from one another. The positive test results occurred despite the mandatory 14-day quarantine for workers upon their arrival from Mexico in April 2020. The Scotlynn outbreak prompted another 14-day quarantine at a local hotel in June 2020. Four events transpired within the same month after workers were bused back to the farm. First, three workers expressed concerns about the conditions and sought return to Mexico. Second, a worker living in Flores’ apartment became hospitalized and died from COVID-19 complications. Third, Flores told his supervisor that the farm should take better care of its workers. Fourth, Scotlynn dismissed and sent Flores back to Mexico after accusing him of speaking to the media about the farm’s conditions. The case turned on the credibility of the parties’ witnesses. Testimony for Scotlynn was evasive or unclear.

The Flores case makes clear that migrant workers can rely on protections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the COVID-19 context. The OLRB found, for example, that by voicing his concerns, Flores engaged section 25(2)(h) of the Act which requires the employer to take all reasonable precautions in the circumstances to protect workers. The OLRB also found that Scotlynn violated section 50(1) of the Act which states that no employer can dismiss a worker for seeking the Act’s enforcement. Given that Flores was dismissed, Flores filed a complaint under section 50(2). However, Scotlynn failed to satisfy the burden of proof required under section 50(5) to dispose of Flores’ complaint. The OLRB found that Scotlynn violated section 50(1) of the Act, and therefore ordered Scotlynn to compensate Flores for his dismissal.

Despite the legislative protections available to workers, Flores’ case shows that more needs to be done to prevent similar dismissals,  especially with respect to COVID-19. Both employers and workers must cooperate and be more understanding of both parties’ duties in the evolving COVID-19 situation. Education is key. The Canadian Government, for example, published  COVID-19: A Guide for Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada (last modified September 2020). The guide reinforces the need for cooperation between and accountability from both parties by making clear to workers the ramifications for contravening COVID-19 requirements and providing channels to report employers’ unsafe practices.

Among these channels is a confidential Government of Canada Tip Line to report an employer violating COVID-19 requirements, and provincial contacts for reporting unsafe workplace conditions. Guidance for Employers of Temporary Foreign Workers Regarding COVID-19 (last updated April 2020) similarly requires that employers follow certain criteria. Employers providing accommodation must meet additional criteria, like regularly sanitizing the housing space and arranging for physical distancing. Employers are also asked to report employees who violate the Quarantine Act which requires, for example, mandatory 14-day quarantine upon arrival in Canada under the COVID-19 Emergency Orders in Council (OIC) made pursuant to section 58 of that Act.

Employers are further held accountable given that they must hire migrant workers either through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP) or the International Mobility Program (IMP). The TFWP requires employers to obtain a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to hire temporary workers, whereas the IMP does not. A positive LMIA called a Confirmation letter is a document that states that there is a need for a foreign worker to fill the job where no Canadian worker can. By contrast, exemption from the LMIA in the IMP is possible where hiring a temporary worker results in “broader economic, cultural or other competitive advantages for Canada” or “reciprocal benefits for Canadians and permanent residents.” Employers must comply with all the requirements under their respective programs and pass inspections by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)/Service Canada as authorized under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).  Inspections can be random or implemented due to suspected or past non-compliance or a disease outbreak at the work site, with or without prior notice to employers.

Non-compliant employers face punishment following inspection. Penalties can include warning letters, monetary fines, and temporary, or for very serious violations, permanent banishment from either or both the TFWP and IMP. To give some idea of the range of monetary fines possible, employers may have to pay $500 to $100,000 per violation up to $1 million over one year. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) also publishes a list of non-compliant employers, their penalties, and reasons that correspond with IRPR provisions on its website. Most recently, in January 2021, a farm in Burford, Ontario was fined $200,000 and permanently banned from hiring temporary foreign workers for failing COVID-19 requirements because of two reasons. The first reason was stopping a worker from complying with the Emergencies Act or Quarantine Act (Reason 18). The second reason was failing to separate quarantining from non-quarantining workers and failing to maintain appropriate physical distancing measures in workers’ living accommodations (Reason 21).

While inspections can protect temporary workers and ensure employers’ compliance, more frequent random inspections could help prevent COVID-19 infections and hazards that lead to situations like Flores’. An even more preventative measure could also be making COVID-19 vaccines available to migrant workers upon their arrival in Canada. Within Canada’s current priority framework for vaccination, migrant workers in the agricultural industry are essential workers under Stage 2 as outlined by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI).  Stage 2 recognizes that outbreaks have occurred in migrant workers’ quarters and that certain work like food production is an essential service that cannot be done virtually. As Canada’s National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure has outlined within the COVID-19 context, agriculture workers are essential to the supply of critical goods like food, one of the ten sectors of Canada’s critical infrastructure.

Given their importance to Canadian society, migrant workers should be given stronger priority in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. In December 2020, Singapore’s foreign minister announced that the COVID-19 vaccine would be free for migrant workers, but not mandatory, and administered on the same basis as Singapore’s local people with priority determined by risk and need.  If feasible on Canadian soil, a model like Singapore’s may provide a strong balancing between workers’ rights to refuse vaccination and be vaccinated for protection in their essential work, as well as workers’ rights to be prioritized as essential workers while ensuring the safety of other prioritized groups in Canada.

Justine Wong, “Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers During COVID-19 and Lessons Learned”, Canadian Law of Work Forum (February 3 2021): https://lawofwork.ca/flores-v-scotlyn…-lessons-learned/

0 comment
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Justine Wong

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

previous post
Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter and Work Law
next post
Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service to Avoid Unionization?

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in...

February 19, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Video: Prof. David Doorey and Lawyer Ryan White...

November 26, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 226 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
17 Mar

New on @CanLawWorkForum from Prof David Doorey (@TheLawofWork)

#Uber #WorkerClassification #EmpLaw

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

Lots of chatter about Uber announcing it will kind of, sort of treat drivers as "workers" in the UK.

How does the UK's "worker" category compare to Canada's "dependent contractor" status? Some thoughts in my new post here on @CanLawWorkForum:

https://lawofwork.ca/uberworkerstatus/

Reply on Twitter 1372255751985631237Retweet on Twitter 13722557519856312371Like on Twitter 13722557519856312371Twitter 1372255751985631237
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
10 Mar

Good day to reflect back on this recent timely post explaining the PRO Act that would dramatically alter U.S. labor law.

For labor law students:

What changes in the PRO Act are already law in all or parts of Canada?

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

A primer for Canadians by ⁦@Harvard_Law⁩’s Jonathan Levitan on what is contained in the U.S. Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO Act) which recently passed in the House south of the border.

(From ⁦@CanLawWorkForum⁩) https://lawofwork.ca/amp/bidenagenda

Reply on Twitter 1369671304274608134Retweet on Twitter 13696713042746081341Like on Twitter 13696713042746081342Twitter 1369671304274608134
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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
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.