The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Here's How to Improve Employment Standards Compliance

by David Doorey October 20, 2010
written by David Doorey October 20, 2010

I was on a panel today at Lancaster House’s Labour Board Law conference, with Peter Engelmann (Sack Goldblatt), Delayne Sartison (Roper Greyell), and Robert Breen, Q.C. (Chair of the New Brunswick Labour & Employment Board).  It was a good panel, with lots of great discussion.
One of the items discussed was Ontario’s Bill 68, or the ridiculously named “Open for Business Act“. I’ve talked about this before. It introduces a new model for the ESA that would disallow claims unless the worker first investigates the ESA and determines what she is entitled to, and then approaches the employer directly to demand compliance.  The government will refuse to accept complaints when the  worker does not document her efforts  in this regard.  I argued before that this is unlikely to improve compliance with the ESA, but would reduce the number of complaints processed, because many employees will abandon their entitlements rather than work through this maze. And that’s the point, really, since the government wants to tackle the backlog of thousands of ESA files.

But, here’s a thought.  Shouldn’t improving compliance be the objective of ESA reform?  So I was challenged to suggest another way to tackle the backlog while also improving ESA compliance.  I’m up to the task.  Here’s what the Liberal government should do.

The law should require all employers to complete and provide employees with a new form within 2 weeks of the end of the employment contract, regardless of why the contract ended.  It could be called the  Statement of End of Employment. I’ve even drafted a template for the form for the Liberals to use (took me ten minutes).
Here is the Statement of End of Employment Form that I will allow the Liberals to use.
It wouldn’t take employers long to complete the form, since they should know most of the information already and the Ministry of Labour can create internet tools to idiot-proof the basic calculations required.  In fact, the Ministry has already done this with its Termination and Severance Pay calculators on the website.  The Ministry could also produce an information brochure explaining how to determine the information on the form.  Thus, “education” is a major component of my proposal.  Failure to complete the form would be met by heavy fines.
The form would require the employer to inform the employee of their entitlements under the ESA and to attach documentary evidence explaining how the employer has, or intends to, provide those entitlements.  It flips the Bill 68 model on its head:  the employer has to learn the law and inform the employee, rather then the other way round.   Employers are already required to tabulate the information on the form, though many don’t (hence the compliance problem).   So my model requires the employer to “learn” its legal obligations, and tells them how to do that with little effort. Employers will be concerned about writing down false information, since that form could become evidence of fraud or illegal conduct in a later investigation.  The forms will also educate employees of their entitlements, and give them something simple to understand or to take to someone who knows something about the ESA.  The form would also bring to light promptly any areas of dispute (such as the date of hire, rate of pay, and reason for dismissal).
My expectation is that this simply form would eliminate a large number of complaints by forcing the employer and the employee to turn their minds to the law while it is fresh in their minds and focus in on disagreements.  It shares the philosophy of Bill 68–encouraging employees and employers to resolve disputes without government intervention–but unlike Bill 68’s model,  it achieves this in a manner that is also likely to improve compliance with the legislation.
Feel free to pass this onto you local politician.   Unless you think my model is hopeless.  Comments welcome.  Boy, this lawmaking thing is fun.

5 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Guest Blog (Brenda Glover): Former Etobicoke Treasurer Explains Why Contracting Out Garbage in Toronto Won't Be Easy
next post
Wal-Mart Loses Latest Attempt to Interfere with Workers' Choice to Unionize in Sask.

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • 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
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • Tax Law
  • 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.