While I currently am not a staffing agency, am not employed as a contractor to a staffing agency, and do not use temporary help (not at present anyways), I am compelled to post this quick update just in case you have not been paying attention.

Back on May 6 of 2009, Bill 139 passed royal assent in the legislative Assembly of Ontario. You may recall my December 2008 post speaking about the composition of Bill 139 to Amend the Ontario Employment Standards Act as it pertains to the treatment of temporary workers employed by agencies, among other things. Well, as planned, it is now 6 months later and the Bill is officially in force. Are you ready?

The impacts, or rather additional questions about the interpretation of the legislation is outlined quite well in an ERE article on the subject from a couple of months ago.

Some of the biggest “issues” with the legislation deal with how agency workers on assignments are notified of terminating assignments and their rights upon the termination of those assignments. If nothing else, it stands to create much more administration for agencies managing the temporary employees, and likely the addition of costs passed along to clients. Oh, and I bet there is going to be much future discussion on what constitutes an employee versus a temporary employee vs a contractor (age old battle here of what passes the muster of the 4 indicators as set out by the government to differentiate an independent contractor from a contract employee).

Here is a copy of Bill 139 – An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Here is a copy of Regulation 398/09 – Terms and Conditions of Employment In Defined Industries : Temporary Help Agency Industry

It is interesting to note, and probably worth doing reading on Bill 212 (in second reading and not yet law) regarding mass terminations, and will affect the application (in a positive way) of the impacts of Bill 139 with the Regulation 398/09 amendments. The employment aspects of Bill 212 can be found in Schedule 20.

Happy reading and planning!

So, this is an interesting court decision with an article from the National Post. What floors me is not so much the case itself or the decision – but the first three comments that were posted by readers with I’m sure many to follow by the time you read this in my blog. While I understand the plight of the employer, I also get the human aspect of what the employee is facing and am absoluetly on board with the human rights aspects of this case. Read the article:

Ontario salon fined $35,000 for firing pregnant employee

Posted: October 30, 2009, 11:42 AM by Gillian Grace

A Mississauga salon that canned a pregnant employee 15 minutes into her first shift has been ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to cough up $35,000 and start an “accommodation of pregnant employees program” (step No. 1: don’t fire them).

Jessica Maciel was four months pregnant when she interviewed for a position at Nino D’Arena salon. Whether or not a prospective new hire is about to start shopping in the maternity section is, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code, none of her boss’s business. So Maciel kept mum about her status, fearing — apparently rightfully so — that she wouldn’t get the job.

As Canwest News Service reports, “Jessica Maciel, 20, will receive $15,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity and feelings and $20,000 in lost wages and maternity benefits from the owner of two related hair salons, the tribunal ruled this week, finding Maciel’s pregnancy was ‘likely the only factor’ in her firing.”

Maciel’s lawyer Kate Sellar had this to say, “This story is typical and it shouldn’t be,” … “It’s illegal to fire workers because they are pregnant. Our centre receives 40 calls a week from women who are in a similar situation.” Most of the calls come from women who are fired when their employer learns they are pregnant. Others are from women terminated while on maternity leave or returning back to work.”

Here’s the first 3 comments:

by Fred_001

Oct 30 2009
1:10 PM

Listen, sweetheart, this is a business – actually, my private business, my personal private property, that I built with my own two hands – who I invite into it to work is just much my private affair as who you invite into your personal home.

It’s NOT a community services program for mothers-to-be to rack up the hours they need to go on maternity UI in a few months.  It costs me money, time, and disruption to advertise, interview, hire, train and evaluate new staff.  You’re gonna use me for a few months to get your UI hours, spend the last couple of those bellyaching about your sore back and you’re late again because of morning sickness and on and on…then throw my investment in you out the window, put me through all that again to hire a temporary replacement for you, expecting me to juggle business and temps in order to keep this job open for you – then you’ll wait until the last minute of your preggers leave to inform me that you’re never coming back, wasting my investment in you and leaving me in the lurch after all that……

Why don’t you just live with the life choice you made, and leave me to hire a full-time permanent employee that won’t ruin me.  Oh, I know why, ’cause we live in a communist state…

by crocodile dundee

Oct 30 2009
2:06 PM

Just another reason to disband this outrageous HRC and fire the nitwits that are employed by it.

So, a woman does not have to inform the employer she is pregnant when interviewing yet on the first day of employment can tell the same employer she is pregnant and wants her maternity benefits. Nice gig. Of course, the beanbrains at the HRC, never having to actually run a business, think small businesses are just flush with cash and can afford to spend money hiring two people.

And where do they get off telling the business to start up a program for accomodation of pregnant employees? Tell them to shove it!!

Waiting to hear from all the HRC supporters who say that their decisions are not costly.

by rossbcan

Oct 30 2009
2:54 PM

Whether or not the law states “you don’t have to disclose info to potential employers such as being preggers”, a crime is being committed. It is called fraud of non disclosure and places the employer in a moral hazard (trap) position, where the negative consequences of hiring choice cannot be determined.

An employment contract was entered into without full material disclosure so both parties (employer / employee) can determine whether it is in their MUTUAL interests to form an agreement (contract) for mutual self-interest. Not to mention destruction of trust, required for working together.

This “law” should be thrown out, as illegal.

But, it won’t and unemployed females will realize that repeating this farce, spilling the preggers beans at the opportune time and getting fired (and getting a lawyer to extort a settlement on this precedent) or, getting all the entitlement perks at employers expense is a good gig.

Employers will wise up and, for unprovable reasons, fail to hire females who may be at risk of becoming pregnant, on the employers dime. Up goes female unemployment (and whining).

This of course, will be cast as an outrageous social injustice and, we will have female “affirmative action”.

In fact, is this not the meaning of Iggy’s “female empowerment” agenda?

Luckily, all of this is crumbling, We will soon have no economic resources to subsidize unproductive entitlements, at others expense.

If you make a choice (such as having children), the consequences and costs are FULLY yours. Choose carefully.

There you have it. I could comment on this at so many different levels, but for me it really comes down to ethics and fairness. There are so many other ways the salon could have dealt with the “issue” and they chose what is probably the least ethical and compassioate one. And, obviously did not consult an attorney, or even consult the internet for Employment Standards information prior to taking action. Let this be a lesson to you all to have some compassion for your fellow humans, or at the very least, be legislatively compliant.

OK, enough said. Unleash your wrath on me.

It seems that being an HR professional these days is being more than just a “people person”. If you don’t believe so, refer back to such comments as seen in the Fast Company “Why We Hate HR” article. Do a search in my blog to find a post and copy of the article if you have not read either. In the article, there is a quote indicating that (let me paraphrase) if you want to help people, then get a job in the social services field. While HR deals with people, it is very much a function of business.

While I have taken the above entirely out of context, and it could be argued as true or too harsh on many different levels – let’s leave it at that for now. Point is, if you got into HR to simply help people, then you may find yourself in the wrong profession. Yes, part of the job can be that of counsellor or mentor, but these days, many HR people find themselves being a strategist, accountant (budgets), legal expert, negotiator, mediator, office manager, clerk and sometimes a programmer or IT expert. Specifically, I would like to focus this post on the amount of law that seems to continue to creep into the HR profession.

Why do I bring this up? The new #1search string landing traffic in my blog is for Bill 139, the 2008 (proposed) amendment to the Employment Standards Act. While I have already written about the amendment only a fwe short posts ago, I would like to focus a few brief words on effective ways for keeping yourself up to date on pertinent legislation. Essentially, to have a lot of this information come to you, so that you don’t need to go searching for it once it becomes a priority item for you… because you heard it on the news or because an employee brought it to your attention – or in a worst case scenario, because a government official comes knocking on your door with a compliance order.

First and foremost, there are industry publications which may be relied upon. For members of the HRPA in Canada, you have access to the regular delivery of a magazine covering all the hot issues of the day. Not fast enough? Then you can always subscribe to online feeds or attend chapter events. Aside from the professional associations, check with your external legal conusel – odds are that they publish a FREE e-mail newsletter for their clients and they would be happy to put you on the mailing list. If not, you can do a search to find firms that will put you on their list, even if you are not a client. I subscribe to a couple just to make sure I am covered. One, for example, is provided by Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. Finally, you can take advantage of all technology has to offer. Find blogs that are specific to employment law and subscribe to their RSS feeds.

The benefits of doing the above are not only to stay current on legislative changes, but also on case law. All of the law firm newsletters I mentioned will also send out updates on major case law decisions that may not change statutes, but may have findings or decisions which could set new precedent for future decision in the application of employment law – decisions which could impact proceeding you or your company have presently within the court system or may in the future.

Point is, be informed. HR is not what it used to be, and it requires more “maintenance” on personal and professional development that it ever has. Imagine if your doctor, accountant or personal lawyer did not keep current by reviewing each of their respective industry journals and publications? Please keep reading my blog for revelant information, and I am happy to keep bringing you interesting articles and information. But, I hope I have also provided you with some additional ideas and resources to help get information to you in a faster, more detailed and more reliable manner.