An Ontario arbitrator has found that an employer violated Bill
168 which introduced workplace violence provisions into
Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local
506, referred a workplace violence grievance to the Ontario Labour
Relations Board. For some reason, the employer did not file the
necessary response form with the OLRB. As such, the OLRB proceeded
to hear the grievance without the employer having filed any
On the basis of the facts stated by the union, the OLRB found
that a principal of the employer had assaulted, on a job
site, a labourer employed by the employer, and that the
principal later threatened another worker with physical violence
The OLRB also found that the employer had failed to prepare,
review and post workplace violence and harassment policies or
programs, or to provide information and instruction to workers
regarding workplace harassment, in violation of sections of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act that were introduced in Bill
The OLRB therefore directed the employer to "cease and
desist from violating . . . the provisions of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act."
While the union also asked the OLRB to award damages –
including for mental distress – to the employees who were the
victims of workplace violence, the OLRB said that it did not have
sufficient evidence to do so, but the OLRB scheduled a date to deal
with the assessment of damages.
Although the employer did not participate in this grievance
hearing, the decision is a warning to employers that non-compliance
with the Bill 168 workplace violence and harassment provisions is
not just a technical breach, but may result in legal orders and
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:
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.
Two employees were working together in a government department. One employee ("Employee X") looked at employment insurance file of a co-worker who was on sick leave ("Ms. M") during working hours but without a work-related reason
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has interesting implications when it comes to competing rights, particularly when some of those rights are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Earlier this week we wrote about a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that considered the conflict that sometimes arises as a result of competing rights under human rights legislation and/or the Charter.
Employers often seek to limit their termination liability with termination clauses. If a termination clause does not meet the minimum requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, then the termination clause will not be valid.