I live in Ontario Canada
Under the Employment Standards Act
Part XVIII
74.(1) No emplyer shall intimidate, dismiss or otherwise penalize an employee or threaten to do so
(a) because the employee,
(viii) is or will become eligible to take leave, intends to take a leave or takes a leave under part XIV
well part XIV says we get 10 Personal Emergency Leave days (sick days that we are protected by the goverment) and again they cannot intimidate, dismiss or otherwise penalize an employee or threaten to do so for taking a leave
QUESTION
my emplyer is handing out notices to everyone who has used more than 1/2 of their leave days and theyre makin us sign to say that if we use another one in the next month without providing documentation, we will be termed
well we need to provide eocumentation anyways, so thats not new.
So is this not intimidating us? threatening our dismissal ???
IS THIS ILLEGAL ?????? http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statute... Nope, since there were no threats.
Sounds like they were just putting the policy of providing documentation, in writing. I'm with you, It sounds like they are trying to get you to sign your rights under the act away.
Though - playing games with your employer is dangerous - they can make life uncomfortable for you if you do not comply. But you can tell them that you acknowledge the policy and you feel that it is intimidating which is a violation under the act. And further, that you feel that the act protects your ability to utilize sick leave if you are, in fact, sick, regardless of whether you were sick last week or not.
I'm not sure how the law provides for documentation of the sick leave and I can't see the link now to read it. Your best bet is to contact your local legal authority (prosecutor) to ask if this counts!
It's not an easy position to be in and it kind of is a "lose-lose" proposition. Maybe. The key bit of info for me is the documentation they ask for. They have certain rights to control their workforce. It would be unreasonable to expect them to allow everyone to take all their leave at the same time. The company could fail if that happened.
So from my extreme example you can see they can establish policies requireng documentation and approvals. Looks like they are trying to enforce a current or new policy. Violation of company policy is a legitimate reason for dismissal. They are giving everyone a warning.
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, nor Canadian. This is jut my personal opinion. sounds like the employer is reminding employees that taking sick days when not really sick is cause to be terminated. This is almost certainly legal.
First, understand that legal advice should only be obtained from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Anything that follows is intended as a general guideline, and should not be relied on as legal advice.
However, what appears to be happening is that the employer, with a "policy" of requiring documentation, may be having a sitatuation where some employees do not have that documentation, or have not submitted it. The employer may, in the past, have let it go.
The purpose of the statute (and the days allowed by the employer) is for true personal emergencies. It is not for vacation, mental health days, etc.
The employer seems to have the impression that some employees have abused this benefit.. They are, therefore, following sound advice to provide this additional notice to everyone who has used a substantial portion of their days. That is, rather than single out an individual or individuals (who would argue that they are being discriminated against for harrassment, and would argue that other people did not provide the documentation), all such people are being reminded of the requirement (which already existed).
Had they just given the warning to you, for example, you would be able to argue that they were discriminating because they did not think it was an emergency, and that they discriminated against you although others did not provide documentation.
In this way, the employer is treating everyone the same way; is not targeting a particular employee, and is trying to solve a problem without getting into legal trouble (at least a perceived problem).
Now, if we assume that you provide required documentation (which is implied), I would probably reassure you that you are not the person they believe has violated the benefit. However, employers often find that employees try to use these days as additional "vacation" days, or "mental health break" days.
The difference to the employer, of course, is that when you use a vacation day, you provide advance notice, and they can try to "cover" your work due to the notice. This is not true of emergency days (where there is often no notice at all).
In addition, many employees view these as compensated days off, which if not used, are used (often the practice). So, since it is a part of their benefit, it is in their economic best interest to use these days even if there are no true emergencies.
Employers, on the other hand, view these as special, exceptional benefits, which in general should NOT be used. They are days that happen to everyone, over the course of their lives, but certainly not every year. The idea is that, if a true emergency arises, they WANT you to take care of your personal lives and loved ones. But this is a rareity.
So, you ask, why 10 days? Well, frankly, because in a true emergency, it might take 10 days to resolve it. A serious accident involving a family member many miles away, might mean days at the hospital. Heaven forbid, if the person needs to have life support decisions made, these things take time. But 10 days is the outside. Then, other types of leave would be required, for the business has to stay in operation.
Bottom line, as long as everyone is being treated the same way, their action is probably legal. In addition, they have not changed the benefit (still same number of days, same requirements) so there is no discrimination. They are trying to solve a business problem, while maintaining the benefit.
Good luck. |
