Share | Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter See us on Youtube

The Dollars and Cents of Drinking and Driving

Labour and employment lawyers often write articles at the holiday season about liability for employers arising from their social events at which alcohol is served. And many clients seek opinions or draft workplace policies on the issue. Whether the employer is seeking to manage this issue for business reasons, ethical reasons, or both, when it communicates with its employees, the truth is that these employers are trying to manage the issue for their own reasons.
Of course, the employer hopes that its goals in this regard will line up with those of its employees. We all want other members of society to make socially responsible decisions not to put themselves, their families or third parties at risk by drinking and driving. But the sad truth is that, for whatever reason, some people do continue to drive under the influence.
Recently, criminal lawyer Rosalind Conway quantified the cost of a conviction for driving under the influence at $20,000 (http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201105168451/Commentary/A-Criminal-Mind-The-cost-of-DUIs-taxis-never-looked-so-sensible). Telling your employees exactly what the cost of a conviction (both the impact on their wallet and their right to get back behind the wheel) may be just the motivation they need to take up your offer of a taxi chit following the next company social event. If their commitment to social responsibility won’t do the trick, maybe the dollars and cents will be the sobering information they need to see.

A Slam to Big Brother at Work

According to a 2007 Statistics Canada study entitled “Time spent with family during a typical work day, 1986 – 2005”, workers in Canada spent an average of 45 minutes longer at work in 2005 than they did twenty years earlier.
During the same period, there was an exponential increase in the amount of time that employees spent in front of a computer screen at work. Many employers also expect employees to be available 24/7 via personal assistive devices (Blackberrys, iPhones, etc.).
It’s clear that people are spending more time, both at work and in non-working hours, on employer-owned electronic devices. One question arising out of this is “is an employer entitled to know what an employee does on an employer-owned electronic device?”. Perhaps more importantly, “can an employer control what an employee does on it?”
From a purely statutory perspective, pursuant to the Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act, a provincially-regulated employee in the province of Ontario has no right to privacy in the workplace. As a result, an employer can review whatever an employee does on a work computer. However, in today’s society, many employees believe they have a right to privacy in the workplace, including on their electronic devices.

So Who is an Employee Anyway?

As we start a new labour and employment blog it seems fitting to note that the way in which we define “employee” is still very much a work in progress. And with so many statutes impacting every workplace, you practically need a scorecard to keep track as to what kind of relationship will be treated as being “employment” (or the same as employment for all practical purposes). Two cases illustrate the challenge for organizations that believe they are using non-employees to provide services. 

From the world of statute law we have the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario (Ministry of Labour v. United Independent Operators Limited http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca33/2011onca33.pdf. In this case, the Court found that independent contractors were “regularly employed” for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act such that their “employer” was obligated to set up a Joint Health and Safety Committee. Perhaps not earth-shattering when one considers the purpose of the statute, but it is another example of how employers can’t assume that the word “employ” will be defined they way they might expect (or wish). 

Another example is from a wrongful dismissal before the same court in McKee v. Reid Heritage Homes Ltd. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca916/2009onca916.pdf. In that case, while the plaintiff was found to be a true employee, the Court of Appeal clearly confirmed the existence of an intermediate class of service provider – the dependent contractor. A dependent contractor is not in a true employment relationship but will be entitled to “reasonable notice” in the same manner as an employee upon a termination. 
Those are just a couple of examples but they underline the need for organizations to have a clear understanding of how they structure relationships with the individuals who provide services – and the implications of those relationships whether pursuant to statutes or under the common law.

Don’t forget to review your Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies and Programs!

It has now been almost 1 year since Bill 168 came into force on June 15, 2010 and, as such, it is time to review and, if necessary, revise your workplace violence and harassment policies and programs.

If you recall, Bill 168 amended Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, thereby imposing significant additional obligations on Ontario employers to both prevent and respond to violence and harassment in the workplace.  Such obligations include, but are not limited to:

        Completing a workplace violence risk assessment;
 
        Preparing workplace harassment and violence policies;
 
        Preparing supporting programs for such policies, including measures and procedures for controlling any identified workplace violence risks, for summoning immediate assistance in the event of workplace violence, for reporting incidents of workplace violence and harassment, and for investigating and dealing with such incidents / complaints; and
 
        Training all workers on the contents of the policies and programs.
 
There is also an obligation that every employer review and revise their workplace violence and harassment policies and programs as often as is necessary to protect their workers from workplace harassment and/or violence and, in any event, at least annually.
 

linkedin linkEmail Chris
Chris has been practicing labour and employment law for over 25 years. This would explain the hair colour.

linkedin linkEmail Mary Lou
Partner and avid book club member.  Truth be told, very little of her book club’s discussion is ever about the book!

linkedin linkEmail Beth
After several years of working towards a career in midwifery,  realized she had been focusing on the wrong kind of “labour”.

linkedin linkEmail Andrea
Closet comedienne and relieved Bay Street transplant.

Browse through past ARTICLE ARCHIVES