By Cédric P. Lamarche

Puisque l’internet permet l’accès à un monde électronique sans frontière, la majorité des employeurs adoptent des règles très rigides en ce qui a trait à la consultation de sites internet lors des heures de travail.  Effectivement, ces règles visent à réduire les activités qui ne se rapportent pas au travail, et plus particulièrement, l’accès au contenu explicite qui se trouve en ligne.  Grâce à des technologies sophistiquées qui permettent la détection et la documentation d’activités électroniques, les employeurs peuvent assurés avec beaucoup plus de facilité l’observation de ces règles.

Dans un article intitulé Surfing porn still popular at work, qui a été publié récemment dans le Globe & Mail, l’auteur discute du fait qu’un nombre très élevé de personnes consultent régulièrement des sites internet pornographiques lors des heures de travail.   Selon l’article, les résultats d’une recherche démontrent que 70% des gens qui accèdent des sites pornographiques le font lors des heures de travail.  À titre d’exemple, l’auteur présente le cas d’un avocat sénior qui fut trouvé à passer jusqu’à huit heures par jour à consulter des sites pornographiques alors qu’il était au travail.

La question suivante devient donc très pertinente pour les employeurs ainsi que les employés : Est-ce qu’un employeur peut congédier un employé, avec motif valable, pour avoir consulté des sites pornographiques au travail ?  À première vue, la réponse à cette question semble évidente.  Toutefois, comme c’est souvent le cas dans le domaine du droit du travail, elle ne l’est pas.

Alors que la consultation de sites pornographiques au travail semble constituer un acte grossier qui pourrait vraisemblablement nuire à la réputation d’un employeur et causer des répercussions sérieuses pour une entreprise, il faut considérer les protections qui sont offertes aux employés par l’entremise du Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario.  Notamment, le Code protège les employés contre la discrimination fondée sur l’existence présumée ou réelle, actuelle ou antérieure, d’un handicap.  Il reste à savoir qu’est-ce qui peut possiblement être considéré comme étant un handicap.

Est-ce qu’une dépendance à la pornographie peut être considérée comme étant un handicap ?

Si la réponse à cette question est dans l’affirmative, comme c’est le cas pour la dépendance à des substances contrôlées ainsi qu’à l’alcool, un employeur pourrait avoir l’obligation de prendre des mesures d’adaptation envers l’employé souffrant d’un tel handicap.  Ainsi, un employeur qui congédie un employée pour avoir consulté des sites pornographies lors des heures de travail, pourrait faire face à une requête pour discrimination devant le tribunal des droits de la personne s’il peut-être démontré que l’employé souffre ou semble souffrir d’une dépendance à la pornographie.

Canadian employers have historically taken an ignorant view of human rights tribunals and their often extraordinary decisions. But that may be quickly changing.

Sweeping changes to human rights legislation and left-leaning adjudicators directed to interpret remedial legislation — such as human rights laws — in a broad and inclusive manner, should leave employers very concerned:

Broadcasting cases.  The Human Rights Legal Support Centre, a government funded program, sends press releases publicizing OHRT decisions.

Cost awards.  There are few cost disincentives for applicants at human rights tribunals.

Assumed jurisdiction.  The tribunals assume their own jurisdiction often before a hearing on those matters.

To read the full article, published in the Metro News, link here.

– Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer with the law firm Whitten & Lublin LLP, which is a team of legal experts who provide practical advice and advocacy for workplace issues.  Reach him at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

Employees often get what they deserve.

When they work hard, they get a bonus. When their service is long and meritorious, they may get a good severance package or pension. When they knowingly break their employer’s rules, however, they often are fired for cause and get nothing at all.

Canadian courts have little tolerance for employees whose computer habits expose their companies to liabilities. This is because in every province there is legislation that is interpreted as requiring employers to provide a harassment-free workplace. As well, given the potential risks to employers, it is clear that they can monitor an employee’s use of computers, BlackBerrys or any other equipment that uses its servers – and they often can do so without notice.

There is a tale of two employees who misused their computers at work and the consequences they reluctantly faced.  To read the full article, visit Daniel Lublin’s weekly column page at Metro News.

Some people view tough bossess as an invitation to a lawsuit.  But this is not always so. 

Today, much of the workforce views a manager’s criticism as “bullying” or “harassment.” As toxic bosses have become a greater liability, their employees no longer call their doctors seeking a note for a leave of absence. Now they call their lawyers. But as harassment is often in the eye of the beholder, when will a tough boss justify a successful lawsuit? 

The entire workplace law column, originally published in the Metro News, can be read here.

Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer with the law firm Whitten & Lublin LLP. Reach him at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

There is no right to refuse reasonable directions from a manager. 

However, when those directions amount to a "new job" altogether, the employee may be able to claim constructive dismissal.  This question was put to an Ontario judge in the recent case of Gary Gordon v. Tubs Ultimate Bath Store. 

Employees cannot always be forced to take on additional duties. If those new responsibilities can be viewed as a creating a new position, the employee may be able to reject them and insist on compliance with their original job. That decision, however, must be reasonable.

In this case, the judge ruled that Gordon's decision to refuse directions from his boss was unreasonable and did not amount to a constructive dismissal because those directions were part and parcel of his usual working conditions. 

To read the full synopsis of this case visit my Metro News Columnists' page here.

Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer focussing on the law of dismissal.  He can be reached at Dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or through www.canadaemploymentlawyer.com

The story of Jordan Wimmer, which we initially reported last week, continues.  In Today's Toronto Star story, Millionaire hedge fund boss, Mark Lowe, responds to Wimmer's allegations as "gross distortions" and "hugely offensive."

But under examination by Wimmer's lawyer, Lowe was forced to explain a series of "joke" emails that he forwarded around the office to employees, including Wimmer.

One email, entitled "Who is your real friend?" read: "Put your dog and your girlfriend in the boot (trunk) of your car for an hour and then see who is happy to see you."

Lowe admitted to the tribunal he had openly called Wimmer a "dumb blond" and referred to her as "decorative."

But he insisted: "It was said entirely as a joke. It was never intended as an insult."

In Canada, employees would make a complaint to a human rights tribunal or a claim of constructive dismissal through the courts. 

Damages for cases such as this would be assessed based on how long it would or should have taken Wimmer to find reasonably comparable work and whether she suffered any compensable mental distress. 

The Supreme Court of Canada recently rules on mental distress cases in the workplace in the Keays case, finding that the amount of damages should be consistent with an employees actual losses.  An example would be where the employee has taken longer to find other work that she normally would have.

Daniel A. Lublin is a partner with the employment law firm Whitten & Lublin LLP, which provides employees and employers with human resources advise and wrongful dismissal advocacy. Reach Daniel at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

A canadian woman working as a top executive at a London, England company is suing her boss for 8 million dollars in a UK Employment Tribunal for allegations that he brought prostitutes to meetings and repeatedly called her a "stupid blonde" before she was fired, as reported in a National Post article here. 

In Canada it is an implied term in every employment relationship that employees be treated with decency and civility, the breach of which can lead to damages for termination, commonly known as a "constructive dismissal."  An example of a constructive dismissal case can be read here.   

In addition, Canadian legislation prohibits discrimination or harassment based on grounds such as gender or race.  

Daniel Lublin is a lawyer with Whitten & Lublin which is an employment law firm in Toronto, Ontario assisting employees and employers with workplace legal matters.  

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently reported the decision in Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures, siding with the applicant who was terminated immediately following the announcement of her pregnancy. 

The press release by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre indicates that Vice Chair Naomi Overend noted Ms. Maciel's vulnerability in her decision by outlining that "She was young, just out of school, and coping with an unplanned pregnancy. This was to be her first full-time job, which she testified she was very excited about, making the experience that followed that much more distressing."

Follow this link to the Globe & Mail article on Ms. Maciel's ordeal.

A copy of the decision can be found by clicking on the link below.

Download Maciel v Fashion Coiffures doc

Whitten & Lublin is an employment law firm providing counsel to both employers and employees on a wide range of employment law issues.

Here are five most frequent files appearing on my desk and in court dockets

1. Workplace Harassment
Following Canada’s first million dollar workplace harassment award, I can expect to see more of these claims walk through my door. That being said, most harassment claims are not credible as employees’ perceptions of their treatment are not dispositive of  the issue. The test is whether an employee can demonstrate continued employment was objectively intolerable, which must be in the eyes of the trial judge, not just those of the litigants.

2. Unjust performance appraisals
Employees often declare a critical review is either a form of harassment or management’s concoction to force their resignation. For an unwarranted review to amount to a wrongful dismissal, an employer must have acted in bad faith and prevented the employee’s improvement.

Justice Randall Echlin, in his decision for Ata-Ayi v. Pepsi Bottling Group, noted negative reviews, per se, do not lead to dismissal. He wrote;

It is essential to any healthy and constructive employment relationship that the employer be able to discuss in an open and candid fashion with its employees, so long as such discussion is proffered in good faith.  Sugar coating or minimizing legitimate concerns inhibits performance improvement and is work performance  not conducive to a healthy and vital working relationship.

3. Calculating severance pay
Courts do not follow any defined rules in calculating how much severance to pay an employee and neither does an ex-employer. At trial, a judge’s task is to consider the circumstances however, four factors do prevail: tenure, age, re-employability, and type of job.

4. Employment contracts
Anything can be written into an employment contract, but not all promises can be enforced. In breaking a contract, most argue the contract provides less than the minimal employment standards, is vague, or the employee was denied the time or opportunity to have the contract reviewed, among other criteria. I elaborated on this premise in my recent column Employment Contracts Can Be Broken.

5. Off duty behavior
Employees who believe their conduct away from the office is immune from discipline are mistaken. Thanks to social networking websites such as Facebook, employers have the technological means- and occasionally the inclination- to monitor behavior away from the job.

Click here for the full article: Workplace harassment is a common employment law case

Read More