Skip to content

Did the Government of New Brunswick pave the way for employees to refuse to work during the State of Emergency?

Clarence Bennett, James LeMesurier, QC and Kathleen Nash

On April 17, 2020, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick met for a quick sitting during which two new Bills were introduced and received Royal Assent within half an hour, purportedly in response to the current COVID-19 State of Emergency. One of these Bills, Bill 40 – An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, introduces the potential for new protections for workers who are affected by State of Emergency or other similar emergency situations.

The emergency leave idea

While the Employment Standards Act currently provides a number of leaves for workers, none of these are directly applicable to the unprecedented emergency situation currently affecting the province. In response, and following the lead of other provinces, Bill 40 introduced the idea of a new job-protected leave for employees impacted by an emergency situation, such as COVID-19.

Depending on the details of the Order-in-Council, this leave would entitle employees to a leave of absence in any of the following circumstances:

  • When the Minister of Public Safety declares a state of emergency under the Emergency Measures Act in respect to all or any area of the Province;
  • When the Governor in Council declares a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency under the Emergencies Act;
  • When the Governor in Council makes an order under section 58 of the Quarantine Act (Canada);
  • In any circumstance relating to:
    • A notifiable disease prescribed by regulation under the Public Health Act or declared to be a notifiable disease in an order of the Minister of Health or the chief medical officer of health;
    • A notifiable event prescribed by regulation under the Public Health Act, or
    • Any other threat to public health.

Bill 40 provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to fix the details of the Emergency Leave in the Regulations. The regulatory power established by Bill 40 includes the power to establish eligibility requirements for the Emergency Leave and the power to make the leave available retroactively when appropriate. It further provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the power to determine whether the Emergency Leave will be paid or unpaid.

A unique aspect of the new Emergency Leave provisions is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council must express that it is necessary for employers to grant employees this leave before it will become effective. No other leave under the Employment Standards Act contains this precondition.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council has not yet made any such expression and has not yet introduced any new regulations. Therefore, the new Emergency Leave provisions are not yet effective and, until the Lieutenant Governor in Council expresses an opinion that an Emergency Leave is necessary, employers are not required to provide this leave to employees.

Increased job-protection

Bill 40 further increased the protections for workers who are taking a leave of absence or are taking advantage of any other right or benefit granted under the Employment Standards Act.

Workers are now expressly protected from being suspended, laid off, penalized, disciplined, discriminated against, dismissed or otherwise have their employment terminated if the reason for any of these actions is related in any way to: the employee taking a leave to which they are entitled to under the Employment Standards Act, making a complaint, giving information or evidence against an employer with respect to an alleged violation of any statute or regulation, or for taking advantage of any right or benefit granted to the employee under the Employment Standards Act.

Effect on employers

While the Emergency Leave provisions are not yet in force, employers will inevitably be affected if the provisions become effective. As the details of the Emergency Leave have yet to be determined, it is difficult to predict the employees who will be eligible for the leave and therefore difficult to predict the extent to which employers will be effected.

It appears that the intention of the new amendments is to require employers to grant employees leaves of absences to those who request them during the declared State of Emergency. As the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the power to make the Emergency Leave retroactively effective, this could potentially result in a number of requests for leave and may require employers to reconsider the situation of employees who have voluntarily left their employment in recent weeks.

Currently, if an employee voluntarily leaves their position without valid safety or medical excuse, an employer is free to replace them with a new hire. However, with the introduction of the new Emergency Leave and the increased job-protection, employers may be faced with maintaining the positions of employees who have taken an Emergency Leave and may be left with vacant positions that cannot be filled – despite the fact that work is available and can be performed safely.

The introduction of the Emergency Leave and the increased protections for workers will be particularly problematic for employers of employees in minimum wage positions. Currently, it appears employees are calculating the difference between the benefits provided under the Employment Insurance Act and evaluating whether to continue to work.

As the federal government has waived some of the eligibility requirements for Employment Insurance Benefits, it is easier for employees to qualify. This is making Employment Insurance Benefits even more attractive to minimum wage employees and leaving employers to deal with many employees voluntarily leaving their positions.

Lastly, Bill 40 also gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the regulatory power to determine whether the Emergency Leave will be paid or unpaid. As all other leaves under the Employment Standards Act are unpaid, we believe it is unlikely the Emergency Leave will be paid. However, employers should be aware that this remains a possibility.

Summary

While Bill 40 is likely to be welcomed by employees, it is problematic for employers who are struggling to maintain a labour force and planning staged back to work protocols.

The actual impact of Bill 40 will become more apparent (if and when) the Lieutenant Governor in Council announces that the Emergency Leave provisions are necessary and exercises her regulatory power to establish the eligibility requirements for the Emergency Leave.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top