BC Labour Laws

[bclabourlaws]

[bclabourlaws]

B.C.'s child labour laws are the most neglectful in the world

The introduction of this regime by a Liberal government in 2004 – before which the minimum work age was 15 – has substantially increased the number of children working in the province.

Business tends to favour permissive child labour laws (likely the reason B.C. said its new law would help make the province more “economically competitive”). Young people work for less pay than adults. They’re easily cajoled to work long and irregular hours without overtime pay, and to accept pay deductions for transportation, uniforms and equipment. They’re more willing to take on tasks and less likely to ask questions about safety and training. They usually don’t know their workplace rights and tend not to report abuses. And they don’t unionize.

None of this makes child labour right. But it does make it attractive for businesses seeking flexible and pliant workers, and for governments bent on serving those businesses’ interests.

B.C.’s regime belies any belief that child labour is solely a problem of the developing world. True, child labour is a scourge in poorer countries, where most of the world’s 218 million child labourers work in harsh and unhealthy conditions, for little pay, often making the very products that fuel our own society’s hyper-consumerism. But most poor countries have joined forces to eradicate this kind of child exploitation.

In the past few years, 156 countries, including Afghanistan and Haiti, have signed an international treaty that bans the employment of children under 15 and requires signatories to raise that minimum age to 16 when conditions permit. Canada and the United States have refused to take part in this effort. As a result, both countries explicitly permit forms of child labour that are banned in much of the world.

The arguments against child labour are really no different today than they were a century ago, when a broad-based “child-saving” movement swept through North America to get kids out of mills, mines and factories. Child labour is “unacceptable,” according to the International Labour Organization, “because the children involved are too young and should be in school, or because even though they have attained the minimum age for admission to employment, the work that they do is unsuitable for a person below the age of 18.”

But child labour can be eliminated. Better laws are necessary – perhaps along the lines of the ILO Convention, with its 15-year-old and 16-year-old minimum ages for work and its various limitations and allowances – as are more effective enforcement mechanisms and stronger penalties for violations.

At the same time, it bears stating that not all work by children should be banned as child labour. As the ILO has said, “helping parents around the home or earning pocket money outside school hours and during school holidays” should not be considered child labour. More generally, “when children or adolescents participate in stimulating activities, volunteering or work that does not affect their health and personal development, or interfere with their education, this is generally seen as being positive.”

B.C.’s permissive child labour law goes well beyond that, however, by placing few protective limits on the kinds and hours of work employers can demand of children as young as 12. Despite that, willful blindness continues to foster the belief that child labour is only a problem “out there,” in the developing world, but not here at home.

So is B.C.’s permissive regime at the forefront of a movement toward greater acceptance and facilitation of child labour? Or is it just a shameful exception to a growing international consensus against the practice? My hope, needless to say, is that it turns out to be the latter.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/bcs-child-labour-laws-are-the-most-neglectful-in-the-world/article627018/

[bclabourlaws]

Ikea violated B.C Labour Law, provicial board finds

RICHMOND, B.C. -- The union representing locked-out workers at IKEA's flagship store in Richmond, B.C., says the provincial labour board has found the Swedish retail giant committed unfair labour practices.

The union says the board found IKEA bargained in bad faith and violated provincial labour law by trying to bargain directly with employees through a website posting.

The board ordered the company to remove the website posting and stop paying monetary incentives for employees to cross picket lines.

Union spokeswoman Anita Dawson says the company makes billions of dollars a year but refuses to negotiate an end to the lengthy dispute.

A statement issued by IKEA says it doesn't agree with the decision and will be appealing.

About 350 employees were locked out of the store on May 13, 2013 and the union says there's been no bargaining since last December.

The union went to the labour board complaining the company offered locked-out employees an extra $2.50 an hour, additional weekend premiums and other incentives to cross picket lines on its website.

Dawson says the offer made directly to employees was for more than what was offered during bargaining.

The statement from IKEA's public relations manager, Madeleine Lowenborg-Frick, said the company feels it's important to communicate directly through the strike and to answer any questions that they may have in a straight forward and honest manner.

"The strike has carried on far longer than anyone could have expected. We do not believe this situation is in anyone's best interest," she said.

The Richmond store is one of only two unionized IKEA outlets in the country.

Source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ikea-violated-b-c-labour-law-provincial-board-finds-1.1933012

[bclabourlaws]

Canada Labour Code permits dismissal without cause: Federal Court

The Federal Court of Canada has confirmed that federally regulated employers subject to the Canada Labour Code may dismiss non-union employees without just cause, despite the unjust dismissal provisions contained in the code. This decision was made in the context of a judicial review of a labour adjudicator’s decision in which the arbitrator concluded that federally regulated employers are only permitted to terminate employees for just cause.

The employee in this case, Joseph Wilson, had worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) for four-and-a-half years when his employment was terminated on a without-cause basis. Wilson was provided with a severance package — in excess of his code severance entitlements — equal to six months’ pay. Unsatisfied with this payment, Wilson filed a complaint under the code claiming unjust dismissal. The adjudicator appointed to hear the case found that Wilson’s employment was an unjust dismissal under the code solely because it was not a termination for cause. AECL applied to the court for judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and an improper interpretation of the code.

Federal Court of Canada decision

After reviewing the decisions relied upon by the adjudicator, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court rejected the adjudicator’s conclusion that the code only permits terminations for just cause and overturned the decision. Justice O’Reilly found the adjudicator did not properly interpret the decisions upon which he relied and noted the code provides for notice and severance pay for employees who are dismissed without cause, which is a clear indication that the intent of the code is to allow termination without cause.

Justice O’Reilly went on to clarify that a federally regulated employer may dismiss an employee without cause, provided that it gives notice or severance pay in accordance with the code. It is, however, open to the employee to make an unjust dismissal complaint and request further relief, except in cases where the dismissal was a result of a layoff for lack of work, a discontinuance of the employee’s position or where the employee has a right to another statutory remedy. If the adjudicator determines that, based on the circumstances, the dismissal was unjust, the fact the employer paid the employee severance pay does not preclude the adjudicator from granting further relief, such as additional compensation, reinstatement or another suitable remedy.

This decision alters the previously held view that employees working for federally regulated employers could not be dismissed on a without cause basis. While favourable to employers that are subject to the code, this decision also makes it clear an employee is not precluded from bringing a complaint against his former employer for unjust dismissal if the employee believes the reason for or the terms of the dismissal were unjust, even where the employee is provided with a severance package in excess of his code entitlements.

Source: http://www.employmentlawtoday.com/articleview/19137-canada-labour-code-permits-dismissal-without-cause-federal-court

[bclabourlaws]

Shaw broke employment law with contract workers

Former employees believe violations continue despite their complaints

Two former Shaw Communications employees are blowing the whistle on how the telecommunications giant broke employment law for years.

Rob Browridge and Tasha Lowe say Shaw underpaid them by declaring them independent contractors when they should have been paid as employees.

"It’s really mean. It seems mean-spirited to me," Browridge said. "The amount that I was getting paid was pretty brutal … with no benefits, with nothing."

"You would expect something like this maybe from a smaller business or something, but this is a company that is highly profitable. They can afford to pay people properly," added Tasha Lowe.

Browridge was a cameraman and Lowe was an editor with Shaw’s community TV division in Vancouver. They worked there at different times, each for more than two years.

Documents show Shaw dictated their full-time hourly pay and schedule. However, they received no pay for overtime worked, no vacation pay and no deductions for taxes, Canada Pension Plan or Employment Insurance. They said Shaw told them that’s because they were considered self-employed "independent contractors."

"I had to file my taxes and they wouldn’t give me a T4," Lowe said. "At tax time, I owed the government or the CRA

[Canada Revenue Agency] about $3,000."

'Still happening'

"I know for a fact this is still happening to other people who are still working there," said Browridge. "They’ve been working there for years longer than I did, so they should be employees. They should be able to take a vacation."

Both said they complained to management, but were told if they didn’t like it they could leave.

"We were basically constantly threatened in a way that if we were to speak out or question anything that could cost us our job or we’d be punished in some way," Lowe said.

Both filed complaints with federal authorities at different times after they left. Shaw was found to be in violation of the Canada Labour Code in both cases, deeming them employees.

Under the law, a worker is an employee if their earnings, schedule, duties and place of work are determined and controlled by the employer.

"They can’t have their cake and eat it, too," Browridge said. "They can’t have people as independent contractors without any benefits, but then expect them to be at their beck and call 100 per cent of the time."

Payroll taxes unpaid

The rulings also suggest Shaw was shortchanging taxpayers by failing to remit its portion of EI and CPP contributions.

The company was told to remit back pay, which it did. However, the timeline in these cases shows Shaw carried on with its practices, even after being told it was in the wrong.

Lowe wasn’t hired until a year after Browridge left — just as Shaw was being ordered to pay him properly. Even so, the company then shortchanged Lowe for another 2½ years before she left in 2012. She received back pay for one year, all that's allowed under the law.

"We [Shaw employees] were not allowed to talk about it — never allowed to say [Rob’s] name. We’re never allowed to talk about any contracting situation," Lowe said.

The workers said they are only aware of the practices in their one small department in Vancouver.

Shaw is one of the country’s largest telecommunications companies, with several divisions across the country and 12,500 employees, as of 2011. The company reported net revenue of $250 million in one quarter last fall.

"They make so much money from their digital phones and from their cable subscriptions,"  Lowe said. "We had to attend quarterly meetings to talk about how much money they were making."

Shaw assessing practices

Shaw declined to be interviewed about the labour law violations, but sent a statement from its president.

"As a leading employer, Shaw is committed to ensuring that our workplaces are compliant with the law. We have a strong track record for creating workplaces that promote employee flexibility, wellness and other accommodations," said Peter Bissonnette.

He did not say whether the company has stopped paying employees as independent contractors.

"Over the past several months, we have been assessing our practices and working with a relatively very small number of contractors to ensure we are compliant with the Canada Labour Code while offering flexibility in our arrangements to attract talent and continue to make our operations successful," Bissonnette said.

Go Public asked how many people Shaw has classified as "contractors," but the company declined to provide any more information.

A current employee, who does not want to be named, claimed the company continues to break the rules. That employee said five editors and "a handful" of reporters in Vancouver are still paid as independent contractors, but treated as employees.

"I worked hard for this company. I deserve the benefits from the entire time spent here. I am hoping that your story will cause them to realize that this is not going away," the employee told Go Public.

Calls for broader probe

Browridge and Lowe said they are upset because their complaints weren’t taken further by the authorities.

"We really thought this would prompt, you know, a big investigation of some sort so that they don’t do this again — and it didn’t. They [government] clearly said that they weren’t going to investigate the company," Lowe said.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is the department that enforces labour laws in federally regulated sectors such as telecommunications. Both Lowe and Brownridge said HRSDC indicated their complaints would be treated as individual cases only.

"I said in my documents to the government, 'This is a more widespread problem than just me, one person. Would you investigate it?' And they said ‘Well, no. We don’t do that. If other people have an issue they have to submit a complaint’," Browbridge recalled.

"[Current employees] are not going to come forward … because if you do this while you are working there they are going to fire you."

A former B.C. manager in employment standards enforcement told Go Public individual complaints often don’t lead to bigger probes, because authorities don't have enough resources to go after companies, particularly big ones.

"It makes no sense to me, because the cost of administering enforcement is miniscule relative to the benefits of enforcing payment," said Graeme Moore, now with the Employment Standards Renewal Coalition.

Business advantage

"There’s about 25- to 30-per-cent advantage to business by treating employees as if they are not employees," Moore said. "If labour is 50 per cent of your cost and you can get a 25 per cent advantage on your competitor by cheating, you have yourself a very healthy market domination."

He believes more and more companies are classifying employees as contractors and getting away with it.

"It’s being done across the board by small and large companies alike. It’s a way to minimize cost and maximize profit," Moore said. "It’s not as if the government is toothless or powerless. They have teeth. They have power. It seems they just choose not to bite."

HRSDC confirmed it has prosecuted just one case against an employer for multiple violations in the last four years — and that was for terminating employees without proper notice. It also confirmed it does not report violations such as Shaw’s to the Canada Revenue Agency. 

"Where there is a finding that an individual is an employee for the purposes of the [Labour]

Code, this is not reported to any other agency," HRSDC said.

Browridge said that leads him to one conclusion.

"So if you are a big company, you are laughing," he said. "You can just keep breaking the law." 

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shaw-broke-employment-law-with-contract-workers-1.1392588