Skip to content

Client Update: New Forms of Unpaid Leave under Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Standards Act

What’s new?

Our employer clients will be familiar with the Labour Standards Act, which sets out the employment standards applicable in Newfoundland and Labrador. Two amendments were made to the legislation this week, both of which came into effect on December 10, 2013. These establish new categories of unpaid leave from employment for an employee:

  • Whose child has disappeared or died as a result of a crime.
  • Whose child is critically ill.

How does an employee qualify for these leaves and how much leave is available?
If an employee has been working with the employer for at least 30 days, they may take an unpaid leave of absence for:

  • Up to 104 weeks if an employee’s child has died, or up to 52 weeks if the employee’s child has disappeared, and it is probable in the circumstances that the death or disappearance was the result of a crime. There is an exception to this rule if the employee is the person charged with the crime.
  • Up to 37 weeks of unpaid leave to the employee parent or guardian of a child who is critically ill (as certified by a physician).

Employer obligations during and after the leave
During these new leaves, the employer is prohibited from dismissing the employee for reasons relating to the leave. If the employee is terminated during the leave, the employer bears a higher responsibility to demonstrate that it was unrelated to the unpaid leave. Employers must provide equivalent, or better, terms and conditions of employment upon the employee’s return to work.

Can the new leaves be combined with other leaves?
These new forms of employee leave are in addition to previously existing compassionate care leave, which provides for up to eight weeks of unpaid leave where a family member is terminally ill and has a significant risk of death in the short term. The death of an employee’s child will likely also entitle that person to bereavement leave in accordance with the other relevant provisions of the Act.

What can an employer require from an employee asking for leave?
The employee is required to provide two weeks’ notice of his or her intent to take leave, unless there is a valid reason why that notice cannot be given. Employers may also seek verification that the employee is entitled to leave. In the case of critical illness leave, the Act expressly contemplates a physician’s certification of the need for, and duration of, the leave. The total length of the new types of unpaid leave is always limited to what is “reasonably necessary in the circumstances”.

What does “reasonably necessary in the circumstances” mean?
The new provisions require employers to make judgment calls as to what is reasonable, or where the employee is entitled to leave. For instance, trial and conviction for a violent crime that may have resulted in a child’s death will usually not take place for some time after the death or disappearance itself. However, if a criminal investigation results and/or if charges are laid in connection with a child’s death or disappearance, an employee may well be entitled to take unpaid leave.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. We are always available to assist you in the event that one of your employees makes a request for leave under these, or any, provisions of the Act.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top