We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
A British Columbia arbitrator has held that an employer violated
its collective agreement by banning the wearing of "Toning
Footwear" in its workplace.
An employee had bought a pair of "Skechers Shape-ups",
which the arbitrator described as having a "rounded or wedged
sole . . . designed to change the way a person walks . . . The
claim is the result will be toned muscles in the legs, thighs,
buttocks and abdomen, weight loss and improved posture . .
."
The employer, which operates a resort, had issued a policy
prohibiting the wearing of shoes with a curved platform sole at
work because they are unsafe, stating a concern that the sole can
cause instability and a potential rollover of the ankle, and noting
that there had been several lawsuits in the United States involving
toning shoes.
The union challenged the policy under an article in the
collective agreement which provided that "Comfortable shoes
will be worn which will also complement the attire worn."
The arbitrator decided that the employer was limiting
employees' personal footwear choices and had not undertaken a
thorough risk assessment. The employer did not have a
reasonable basis to conclude that this type of shoe was
inappropriate for use at work by all employees in all
departments.
The arbitrator ordered that the policy was inoperative, but gave
the employer more than four months to undertake a thorough look at
toning shoes and determine if that type of shoe was a hazard for
any groups of employees or area of the workplace.
While this decision is based on the specific wording of the
collective agreement in question, it demonstrates how unionized
employers' safety rules can be challenged when they limit
employee freedom but are not clearly supported by evidence.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
