mckercher llp barristers & solicitors€¦ · mckercher llp barristers & solicitors...

McKERcHER LLP BARRISTERS & SOLIcITORS

mckercher.ca

SASKATOON374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M5(306) 653-2000 F (306) 653-2669

REGINA500 – 2220 12th Avenue Regina, SK S4P 0M8(306) 565-6500 F (306) 565-6565

VOlumE 7, ISSuE 2wINTER 2013

Page 2

Lobbyist Legislation in Saskatchewan

Page 3

Individual Privacy Rights vs. Union’s

Freedom of Expression: Supreme

Court Declares Privacy Legislation

Unconstitutional

Page 4

Estoppel in the Collective Bargaining

Context: Court of Appeal Weighs In

Labour & Employment News

The Government of Saskatchewan has introduced a bill to incorporate essential services legislation into The Saskatchewan Employment Act. The effect of the proposed changes will be to repeal The Public Service Essential Services Act, but to implement most of its provisions into The Saskatchewan Employment Act. The bill will also implement changes to some of the more controversial provisions of the current essential services regime, including:(a) Requiring an essential services agreement to be negotiated at impasse in bargaining a collective agreement.(b) Expandingthedefinitionof“publicemployer”toincludeallemployersthatprovide an essential public service.(c) Enablingdisputesonthecontentofanemployer’sessentialservicesnoticetobeheardbyanarbitratororarbitrationboard.(d) Enablingtheuniontochallengeallaspectsoftheemployer’sessentialservicesnotice; and(e) Providing a process to resolve a collective bargaining agreement where the level of essential services required results in a strike or lockout being ineffective.

The proposed changes will also expand the required provisions of an essential services agreementbetweenapublicemployeranditsemployees.TheupcomingdecisionofSupremeCourtofCanadaregardingtheconstitutionalityofThe Public Service Essential Services Act asitcurrentlyexistswillnotbeaffectedbytheproposedchanges.

The SaSkaTchewan employmenT acT: UPDATE on ESSEnTIAL SERvICES


Do you employ a lobbyist?The provincial government has introduced legislation that regulatestheactivitiesoflobbyistswithintheprovince.BillNo. 120, known as The Lobbyist Act, sets out requirements for individualswhoarepaidtolobbyelectedofficialsonbehalfoforganizations,includinganonlineregistrationsystem.Whileitwillbesometimebeforethebillbecomeslaw,employersshouldconsider whether the registration requirements set out in the bill mightapplytotheirworkplacesand,ifso,whatstepswillberequired to implement the requirements of the legislation once it is in place.

What is an In-House Lobbyist?TheBilldefinesthispositionasanindividualwhoispaidtoperformhisorherfunctionsasalobbyist.Thelobbyingactivitydonebyanindividualonbehalfofagroupororganization,either alone or in combination with other individuals in the organization,mustamounttoatleast100hoursannuallytoqualify.Ifthetotalhoursoflobbyingactivityarelessnoregistrationisrequired.LobbyingisdefinedascommunicationwithapublicofficeholderinanattempttoinfluencethedevelopmentorintroductionofmatterssuchasBills,legislativeproposals,guidelines,grants,contractsetc.PublicofficeholderisfurtherdefinedasmembersoftheExecutiveCouncil,LegislativeAssembly,ministryemployees,oremployeesofagovernmentinstitution.ItalsoincludesthoseappointedbytheLieutenantGovernorinCouncilorbyamemberoftheExecutiveCommittee. What responsibilities do employers have?BillNo.120seekstoensurethatlobbyingactivitieswithinSaskatchewanaresubjecttoappropriateaccountabilityrequirements. This will allow the public to be aware of who is lobbyingthegovernment.Theprimaryconditiontoensurethisisanonlineregistrysystem.Thedesignatedfilerofanorganizationemployinganin-houselobbyistisrequiredtofilereturnsevery6monthsthatdetailthelobbyist’swork,includingdescriptionsoftheorganizationsthatpayforthelobbyingactivityandhowmuchthoseorganizationshavespentonlobbying.Thereturnmust

includefurtherdetailssuchastheparticularsofspecificBills,legislativeproposals,etc.thatwillbethesubjectofthelobbying.Ifalobbyistformerlyheldpublicoffice,thedetailsofthatposition must be included in the return. Methods or techniques of communicationintendedtobeusedbythemustalsobedisclosed.MorerequirementsarelistedintheBill.Thefailuretosubmitreturns or the provision of false information or other offences against the Actwillleadtofinesrangingfrom$25,000.00-$100,000.00againstthosefoundtohavecontravenedtheAct. TheRegistrarmayalsoprohibitthepersonguiltyofanoffenceagainst the Actfromengaginginlobbyingactivitiesforuptotwoyears.TheRegistrarmayalsoprohibitthepersonwhocommittedtheoffencefromfilingorhavingareturnfiled.

BillNo.120doesnotapplytounpaidindividualssuchasvolunteers or private citizens pursuing personal interests with theirMLA’s.Therewillalsobeanexemptionforindividualsactingintheirofficialcapacityonbehalfoflocalauthoritiessuchasmunicipalities.BillNo.120alsostatesthatofficers,directorsoremployee’sofnon-profitorganizationsareexemptfromtheregistrationsystem.Thiswouldincludenon-profiteducationalinstitutions such as the universities.

BillNo.120providesamodernandtransparentapproachtolobbyinginSaskatchewan.McKercherLLPwillbepresentingahalfdayseminaronthebillinthenewyear.Ifyouareinterestedin participating in the seminar, please contact Monica Pollard at [email protected].

LoBByIST LEgISLATIon In SASKATChEWAn

02

TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasrecentlyrenderedanimportantdecision regarding freedom of expression in the union context andprivacyrightsofemployeesinAlberta(InformationandPrivacyCommissioner)v.UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkers,Local401.Inthiscase,unionworkersforanAlbertacasino,whowerelawfullyonstrike,weretakingphotographsandrecordingvideosofemployeesandotherpersonscrossingthepicketline.Someoftheimagesobtainedweredisplayedonthepicketlineor other documents available to union members. A few of the non-strikingemployeescomplainedtotheAlbertaInformationandPrivacyCommissionerthatthisinfringedontheirprivacyrightsundertheprovincialPersonalInformationProtectionAct.The Commissioner prohibited the union from using these images. Theunion,however,appliedforjudicialreview.Whereastheemployeeswantedtheirrighttoprivacyrespected,theunionwanted the court to protect its freedom of expression to broadcast theimagesoftheseemployeesovertheinternet.ThedisputeeventuallyreachedtheSupremeCourtofCanada.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the union could collect andusepersonalinformationinthisregard.Intheiranalysis,theCourtfoundthatthistypeofactionwasaformofexpressionthatdeservedprotectionbytheCanadianCharterofHumanRightsand is a right of fundamental importance. The Court considered

thesignificanceofassociationincollectiveaction,howitpromotes a balance in labour relations, and enhances broader societal concerns. Almost as important, the Court found that the legislationdisproportionatelyprotectedminimalintrusionofprivacybybarringcertainlegitimateformsofexpression,suchas this. The legislation did allow for certain exemptions, but it puttheprotectionofindividualprivacytoohighwithoutregardtocontext,otherworthypurposes,andadditionalrightsandfreedoms.Forthesereasons,theCourtfoundthisprivacylegislation unconstitutional.

The judgment is an interesting example of the balancing of rights in the workplace. WhereastheSupremeCourtof Canada has often framed privacyrightsasdeserving“quasi-constitutional”statusandprotection,inthiscase,freedomofexpressionroundlytrumpedprivacy.Itwillbeinterestingto see whether this judgment will impact the upcoming Supreme Court appeal involving a constitutional challenge to Saskatchewan labour legislation.


InDIvIDUAL PRIvACy RIghTS vS. UnIon’S FREEDoM oF ExPRESSIon: SUPREME CoURT DECLARES PRIvACy LEgISLATIon UnConSTITUTIonAL

03

ThE jUDgMEnT IS An InTERESTIng ExAMPLE

oF ThE BALAnCIng oF RIghTS In ThE

WoRKPLACE.


mckercher.caSASKATOON374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M5(306) 653-2000 F (306) 653-2669


With offices in Regina and Saskatoon, McKercher LLP has over 60 practicing lawyers in all major areas of law. These lawyers are backed by an outstanding team of support staff with a wealth of resources. We are strategically positioned to take advantage of all that Saskatchewan has to offer. Tracing our roots back to 1926, we are proud of what we have accomplished and consistently work towards serving our clients with innovation and integrity.

This newsletter is for information purposes only and should not be taken as legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. Counsel should be consulted concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have.

Submissions by: David M.A. Stack, Dean C. Stanley, Elizabeth j. Ulmer (Student-at-Law) and Andrew W. Restall (Student-at-Law)

ESToPPEL In ThE CoLLECTIvE BARgAInIng ConTExT: CoURT oF APPEAL WEIghS In

TheSaskatchewanCourtofAppealhasrecentlyrenderedanimportantdecisionregardingtheuseofestoppelincollectivebargainingagreementsbetweenunionsandemployers.ThedecisionofSherwood Co-operative Association Limited v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 539stemmedfromauniongrievanceduetotheemployer’scalculationoftimeduringastatutoryholidayworkweek.Anarticleofthecollectiveagreementstatedthatemployeesshouldnotbedeductedtake-homepayoftheirbasicthirty-eighthouranddoubletimeforworkingonstatutoryholidays.Historicallytheemployerhasunderstoodthistomeanthatanemployeewastobepaidforhoursworkedplusdoubletimeiftheyworkedthestatutoryholiday.However,recentlytheUnionchallengedthisinterpretationandsuggestedthisarticleactuallymeansthatanemployeeshouldbecreditedwithatleastthirty-eighthoursplusdoubletimeiftheyworkedduringastatutoryholiday.

TheBoardofArbitration,upheldbytheSaskatchewanCourtofQueen’sBench,foundthattheemployeeshouldhavebeencreditedwiththirty-eighthoursofworkanddoubletimeforanadditionaleighthourscomparedtotheemployerscalculation.TheSaskatchewanCourtofAppeal,however,disagreedwiththeBoardandthelowerCourt.TheCourtofAppealfoundthedecisionoftheBoardunreasonablewhenbaseduponacorrectinterpretationofcaselaw,understandingofestoppel,andthefactsofthecase.Relyingon principles from a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision and other arbitration decisions, the Court emphasized how arbitrators inlabourgrievancesneedtobefair,maintainpeacebetweenemployersandemployeesinagreementdisputes,andneedtoconsiderstatutes, the principles of labour relations, the nature of collective bargaining, and facts relating to the grievance.

TheCourtofAppealintheiranalysisdiscussedingreatdetailtheissueofestoppel.Estoppelmeansthatapartyshouldbepreventedfrombringingforwardaclaim.Estoppelisusedinacollectiveagreementcontextwhenarepresentationismadebyapartythataparticular set of rules would be followed, but then chooses not to follow those rules. The Court of Appeal found that the union should havebeenestoppedfrombringingforwardthisgrievance.Theemployer’scalculationofhoursduringstatutoryholidayweekswasalongstandingpracticethattheunionhistoricallynevergrieved.Theemployerreliedonthisinactionasarepresentationthattheunionagreedwiththeirinterpretation.TheCourtfounditwouldbeunjustfortheuniontochangethispracticeinthemid-lifeofthecollectiveagreement,asitwouldunfairlyprejudicetheemployerandcouldaffectthestabilityoftheongoingrelationshipbetweentheunionandemployer.

TheCourtofAppeal’sjudgmentprovideswelcomeguidanceregardingtheapplicationofthedoctrineofestoppelinthecollectivebargaining context.


Employment & Labour LawOurFirmactivelyadvisesclientsonlabour-relatedmattersandroutinelyrepresentsclientsinappearancesbeforethecourts,theLabourRelationsBoardandvariousarbitrationandhumanrightstribunals.WerepresentbothFederallyandProvinciallyregulatedclientele.

Ourexpertisecoversallaspectsoflabourandemploymentlaw,includingunjust dismissal disputes, collective bargaining disputes and human rights complaints.

Ourlawyersareexperiencedinadvisingworkplacesregardingtherightsanddutiesofallpartiesassetoutbytheoccupationalhealthandsafetyregulationsas well as advising on the federal or provincial labour codes that are applicable depending on the sector involved.

Wehaveexperienceacrossmanyindustriesfromconstructionandnon-profittoeducational institutions and national retail outlets.

SASKATOON374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M5(306) 653-2000 F (306) 653-2669


mckercher.ca

SPEcIAlIzING IN:

• CollectiveBargainingIssues

• Labour Disputes• Grievance Arbitration• Termination Disputes• HumanRightsIssues• OccupationalHealthand

Safety• Pension Law

PRImARy PRAcTITIONERS:john R. Beckman, QCPaul L. Clemensgeorge A. greenCollin K. hirschfeld

Brittnee j. hollidayDaniel P. KwochkaAlan g. McIntyreDarcia g. Schirr, QC

Catherine A. SloanDavid M.A. Stack (Chair)Marie K. Stack

mckercher llp barristers & solicitors€¦ · mckercher llp barristers & solicitors...

Documents