Publication
“AI and sustainability - cure or curse?”
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Global | Publication | June 2018
In a recent labour arbitration decision, an arbitrator upheld two grievances filed by a trade union against an employer (the Company) that refused to allow employees to take personal emergency leave if they had already used all the “floater days” that they were allowed under a collective agreement (the Collective Agreement).
The standard the union was seeking to enforce came into effect when the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) was amended on January 1, 2018, to allow for personal emergency leave days, which, subject to some limitations elsewhere in the ESA, allows for two paid days of leave and a further eight unpaid days of leave in the following situations (s. 50):
When the personal emergency leave provisions came into effect, Company employees were already entitled to three paid floater days in a 12-month period, from July to June, which they could either use as a holiday or for unexpected justified absences from work.
When two employees attempted to take paid personal emergency leave, the Company said they could not because they had already used their paid floater days, which the Company said counted as taking paid personal emergency leave days.
The Company relied on s. 5 of the ESA, which provides that, if a provision in an employment contract provides a greater benefit to an employee than does the employment standard, the provision in the contract applies and the employment standard does not apply.
Ultimately, the arbitrator decided the new entitlement to personal emergency leave days was in addition to the floater days already allowed under the Collective Agreement.
The arbitrator explained that the greater benefit provision of the ESA requires comparing “apples to apples,” meaning the two benefits must have the same purpose in order for s. 5 to apply. As floater days could be used as holidays, it would be inconsistent with their purpose, and inconsistent with what was negotiated, to force employees to save two of those days for personal emergency leave purposes.
Further, the timeframe was relevant in that personal emergency leave days were based on a calendar year, whereas floater days were based on a different 12-month period. If employees used more than one of their floater days before the new calendar year, they would not have the required two personal emergency leave days in the next calendar year.
Employers must be sure to comply with the post-Bill 148 requirements of the ESA, without reducing negotiated terms of a collective agreement to compensate. In determining whether or not a benefit meets the ESA standard, both purpose and timeframe must be considered.
Publication
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Publication
In this edition of Regulation Around the World we review recent steps that financial services regulatory authorities have taken as regards investment research.
Publication
n a long-running dispute, taking in no less than three arbitrations spanning 26 years cumulatively (involving allegations of state interference in the arbitral process), the Court has provided useful guidance on the ss.67 and 68 challenges, particularly in the context of investor-state claims.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023