Behind the times?

Get in touch

416.218.5540

Matthew Dewar • December 11, 2020

Do employees sign up for a minimum level of abuse in 2020 and are lawyers in their dotage perhaps falling behind the times?

SUPRIYA DWIVEDI RESIGNED FROM GLOBAL NEWS AFTER RECEIVING A RAPE THREAT DIRECTED AT HER DAUGHTER. PHOTOS SUPPLIED AND BY CARLOS OSORIO

One would have thought that there was no question: for years, the courts, and subsequently the legislatures, have assured employees the right to be free of harassment and abuse from either their managers, co-workers, customers, or clients. The law imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to protect their health and safety and to take preventative measures to eliminate or reduce such hazards in the workplace.

By way of example, airlines may not tolerate passengers harassing flight attendants; waitstaff in restaurants do not have to endure abuse from rude patrons; and articling students and junior lawyers need not patiently suffer any bullying on the part of their principals. While abuse may have been de rigeur in workplaces in the 70s, the law has evolved to reflect society’s intolerance of such conduct.

It appears that not all lawyers grasp how the law has developed in this area.

Social media has been abuzz with a story of a radio host who recently resigned, accusing her employer of not protecting her from trolling and abuse from segments of her audience. The news station vigorously denied the allegations and asserted that it had done everything possible to protect her. That statement appropriately restates the legal obligations of the employer.

However, the station’s lawyer conveyed an entirely different message in a quotation to the effect that if she could not tolerate trolls, then she does not belong on talk radio as it is currently practiced in North America.

Presumably, the lawyer’s quote is not accurate. Surely, it could not be reflective of how he truly feels about workplace abuse, could it?

Newer Post >

Mail

Duntrune Blog

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

By Matt Dewar • September 12, 2023

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

When should an employee worry that their off-duty misconduct may give rise to termination for cause?

January 13, 2023

When should an employee worry that their off-duty misconduct may give rise to termination for cause?

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on an Employee’s Notice Period

By Michael F. Lee • October 26, 2021

The pandemic’s impact on Canada’s economy has resulted in job losses across a wide array of sectors. As more employees are let go, judges are continually tasked with determining whether and how the economic downturn should be taken into account in assessing employees’ termination entitlements.

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols In the Workplace – Get with the program or else (?)

By Jason Beeho • September 20, 2021

On August 17, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the government would implement a policy of mandatory vaccination for all federal public servants, subject only to exclusions for “legitimate medical reason[s]”. He went on to caution that, for those public service employees who refuse to be vaccinated, “there will be consequences.”

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols

By Jason Beeho • August 23, 2021

In recent days, we have seen the Federal government announce that – subject only to limited exceptions – all of its public service employees must be fully vaccinated. The Ontario provincial government quickly followed suit with a similar pronouncement, as did the City of Toronto. So has the TTC, and – as at this writing – numerous universities and four of Canada’s major banks.

A Ray of Hope for Employers

By Israel Balter • August 11, 2021

For Ontario’s employers, the contemporary challenge of hiring staff is characterized by attracting talent that meets core competencies and rudimentary work habits and retaining them. It would be understandable that companies would seek a measure of assurance that the employees that they hire will stay with them. The costs incurred in training staff are as often as not a wasted investment in a market dominated by a mobile workforce exhibiting little fealty to their employers and aggravated by recurrent lockdowns.