When Does a COVID Layoff Become a Termination?
By: Nicole ManganFirst, if an employer does not recall the employee within the time required under the Employment Standards Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 113 (the “Act”), then they are required to pay the employee their termination pay in accordance with the Act. Prior to COVID-19, a layoff could not exceed 13 weeks in any 20-week period. Earlier in the pandemic, this period was extended (more than once) to ultimately permit up to 24 weeks of layoff in a 28-week period or a layoff until August 30, 2020, whichever was earlier. Employers who wished to extend a layoff beyond August 30, 2020, were required to apply for individual variances. The permitted layoff period has now returned to the 13 weeks in a 20-week period requirement despite ongoing business closures.
Second, unless the layoff occurs in an industry where this tool is normally used, then the employee must agree to the layoff, either as a term of their employment contract or with the employer at the time the need for the layoff arises. Without either an agreement or an industry standard, the layoff may be invalid and become a termination.
Can an employer require you to be vaccinated? AND, is termination because you are not vaccinated a wrongful dismissal?
No one can force a person to be vaccinated but a person’s decision may have consequences. All employers, under WorksafeBC requirements, are obligated to keep their workplaces safe.
As the pandemic took hold, every employer was required to prepare and post a COVID-19 safety plan. Requiring all employees, or all employees who do not work from home, to be vaccinated is one tool some employers are using to help meet their obligation to keep workplaces safe. We do not have the benefit of case law on vaccination policies decided in a pandemic context.
Employers imposing vaccine requirements in union environments, prior to the pandemic, generally had to justify the policy by showing: it wasn’t arbitrary, punitive, or stigmatizing; it was proportional; and, it didn’t violate the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 210 (the “Code”).
We do not yet know whether similar criteria would be applied in the context of COVID-19 and non-unionized workplaces. Except where the government has introduced a requirement that a certain employer or field of work is required to be vaccinated, an employee cannot be terminated for “cause” based on a decision to not receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Employers can, however, terminate employees “without cause” at any time. This rule has always been subject to the obligation to comply with human rights obligations.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal has been clear — it does not deal with COVID-19 or vaccine complaints unless they relate to: a person with a disability (and the disability is connected to the complaint); a religious practice; or, a genuinely held religious belief.
Personal views are not protected by the Code. While requirements under the Code would continue to apply, many employers are now considering policies where all new employees must be vaccinated as a condition of any offer of employment.
For more information about this post, or if you require support updating your policies, email Employment & Human Rights Lawyer, C. Nicole Mangan at nmangan@rbs.ca or call at 604.661.9257.
NOTE: This article was first published in Bar Talk.
-
Proving a constructive dismissal claim is no easy feat for an employee as Mr. Baraty found out in the BC Supreme Court decision of Baraty v. Wellons Canada Corp. where the Court dismissed his claim that he had been constructively dismissed from his employment. In this case, the Court decided that Mr. Baraty had “erroneously believed” that he was being pushed out, however, an objective review of the surrounding facts led the Court to the opposite conclusion…
-
Sorry was really not the hardest word in the recent BC Human Rights decision of Duke v. Sobey’s, where the Tribunal found that Sobey’s apology and $250 gift card were a sufficient remedy to Ms. Duke’s discrimination complaint. The Tribunal found that proceeding with Ms. Duke’s complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.
