Employer obligations for the October 21 federal election
With the federal election coming up next week on October 21, 2019, it is a good time for a reminder of the employer obligations under the Canada Elections Act.
Employees who are eligible to vote (Canadian citizens who are 18 years of age or older) are entitled to have three consecutive hours while the polls are open in order to do so. Whether an employer is required to allow an employee time off from work to vote depends on the employee’s scheduled working hours and the available polling hours (which vary by region). Where an employer is required to allow such time off from work, it gets to choose the hours.
For example, let’s assume the available polling hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. If the employee is scheduled to work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., then the employer is not required to provide time off. The employee has (more than) three consecutive hours to vote after work. However, if the employee is scheduled to work from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., then the employer is required to allow the employee additional time off such that the employee has three consecutive hours to vote. In that example, the employer could allow the employee to leave early at 5:30 p.m.
Where an employee is entitled to time off to vote in the federal election, the employer is not permitted to make a deduction from their pay or impose a penalty for that time. This means that the time off to vote must be paid as if the employee worked their full scheduled hours that day.
Finally, please note that there is an exception for employees of certain transportation companies who are employed outside of their polling division in the operation of a means of transportation, if the additional time off cannot be allowed without interfering with the transportation service.
This update is intended for general information only. Should you have questions on the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read MoreNeil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…
Read MoreOn June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…
Read More