The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Unlawful Reprisals and the Employment Standards Act

by David Doorey April 8, 2010
written by David Doorey April 8, 2010

Most employment protection legislation includes a section that prohibits an employer from retaliating in any way against an employee who tries to claim their entitlements under the legislation.  This makes sense, because if employers could just punish or dismiss employees who rely on the legislation, then the legislation is meaningless.  The ‘no reprisals’ section in the Ontario ESA, for example, is Section 74.  It prevents an employer from threatening or punishing an employee who enquires about her rights or makes a claim, etc.
A recent decision of the OLRB gives you a flavour for how this section works.  In Mediclean Inc. v. Mendoza, the employee was a cleaner.  The employer promised to pay her an additional 3 hours’ pay after it assigned her to a more difficult work area, but then refused to pay her those hours.  The employer also didn’t pay her proper overtime pay.  The employee went to the Workers’ Action Centre, an employee advocacy centre in Toronto, and a lawyer there wrote to the employer requesting they comply with the Act.
Within days of the letter from the lawyer, the employer gave the employee a ‘written warning’ for poor performance, and sent one of the owners of the company to ‘retrain’ her.  After this, the employee quit, and filed a claim under the ESA seeking the outstanding money, and claiming both that the faux discipline was a reprisal for her seeking to recover her ESA entitlements and also amounted to a constructive dismissal under the ESA, entitling her to termination pay.
The employee won all of her arguments.   The OLRB found that Section 74 applies when:

1.  The employee has engaged in a protected activity (such as claiming their ESA entitlements);
2.  The employer was aware or suspects that the employee engaged in the protected activity;
3.     The employer penalized or threatened to penalize the employee; and
4.     There is intention, i.e. that the penalty or threat of penalty by the employer was because the employee   engaged in the protected activity.

The onus is on the employer to prove that there wasn’t a reprisal.  In this case, the Board found the employer had failed to meet that burden.  Even though there was apparently documentation that customers had complained about the employee’s work a month earlier, the fact that the employer took no action until after the Workers’ Action Centre sent its letter showed that the real reason for the alleged discipline was to punish the employee for claiming her entitlements.
The Board also found that the discipline and the failure to pay the employee her entitlements under the Act amounted to a constructive dismissal.   Section 56(1)(b) of the Act says that a termination under the Act occurs when:

“the employer constructively dismisses the employee and the employee resigns from his or her employment in response to that within a reasonable period.”

Note the remedy here.  Obviously the employer was ordered to pay the outstanding wages.  The remedy for the reprisal was wages for the entire period between the date the employee quit and the date she ultimately got a new job three months later.  Plus, since she was dismissed, she was also entitled to termination pay.
Of course, while this seems like a win for the employee, keep in mind that she still lost her job.  Unfortunately, this is the common result.  Most employees do not pursue ESA complaints against their employers until after they have already quit. The Board does have the power to reinstate the employee (even against the employers’ wishes), but few employees actually ask for that to happen because they know that the work environment has been poisoned by the mere fact that they had the gall to ask for what they are legally entitled to.  Who wants to work for an employer that will be looking for any reason to dismiss them.
Can you think of any solution to this problem?

4 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
Saskatchewan Government Violates International Human Rights Laws
next post
Guest Blog: Roy Adams on the Fraser Case and International Labour Standards

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
31m

FYI, the School of HRM at @yorkuniversity will be hiring up to 2 tenure-stream profs including possibly one at the Associate Professor level.

Jobs will be posted in fall for start July 1, 2023. If you know anyone in the market pass along.

https://www.yorku.ca/laps/shrm/

Reply on Twitter 1558834355442552832Retweet on Twitter 1558834355442552832Like on Twitter 1558834355442552832Twitter 1558834355442552832
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

If one these dimwits was a Sacha Baron Cohen-like comedian playing the role of a Republican would any one notice?

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸@patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.

Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”

Reply on Twitter 1558630572783722497Retweet on Twitter 15586305727837224972Like on Twitter 15586305727837224974Twitter 1558630572783722497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

A student told me she is translating chapters of my book into Korean because she learned a lot and wants it as a reference but English is her second language.

Any Korean speakers out there? What does this say?

일의 법칙

Reply on Twitter 1558595466182393858Retweet on Twitter 1558595466182393858Like on Twitter 15585954661823938582Twitter 1558595466182393858
Load More...

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
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.