Skip to content

Temporary lay off timeline extended to 26 weeks from 13… temporarily

Twila Reid and John Samms

On Friday, June 12, 2020, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced it has extended the time period under section 50 of the Labour Standards Act (“the Act”) that converts a temporary layoff into a permanent termination.

The Order doubles the amount of time a person may be considered to have been temporarily laid off to 26 weeks from 13 weeks, so long as that timeframe is captured within a period of 33 consecutive weeks between March 18 and September 18, 2020. If a worker receives pay during the 33 week period, the number of days for which the employee is paid does not count toward the 26 week lay-off period. The deadline to make a complaint is extended to 12 months from the date the employee’s contract is terminated (the previous deadline was 6 months).

This is a temporary change as the Act itself has not been amended. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council made the Order through the Temporary Variation of Statutory Deadlines Order, made under the power of section 6 of the Temporary Variation of Statutory Deadlines Act, a creature of the provincial government’s COVID-19 response that impacts a myriad of statutory deadlines.

This move may temporarily ease some of the pressure on employers as the normal operation of the Act would have employers facing decisions to permanently terminate employees even though many businesses cannot operate as a result of ongoing COVID-19 restrictions. This change allows employers to take more time to consider how best to bring employees back to work or adjust their business in accordance with the so-called “new normal”.

Employers should seek specific legal advice to understand how the above Order is applicable to their particular circumstances, including what further notice(s) if any they should provide to laid off employees.

The Order, as published in the Gazette, states as follows:

The Temporary Variation of Statutory Deadlines Order is amended by adding immediately after section 4 the following:

4.1(1) Notwithstanding section 50 of the Labour Standards Act, where an employer temporarily lays off an employee on or after March 18, 2020 and before September 18, 2020 and the lay-off exceeds 26 weeks in a period of 33 consecutive weeks, the employee shall, for the purposes of Part X of that Act be considered to have been terminated at the beginning of the 26 week period.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a day during the period of 33 consecutive weeks for which an employee receives pay, including pay the employee receives for a public holiday occurring during that period, shall not be counted in the calculation of the 26 week lay-off period set out in subsection (1).

(3) Where the 6 month period referred to in subsection 62(3) of the Labour Standards Act falls on or after March 18, 2020 and before September 18, 2020, a person may, notwithstanding subsection 62(3) of that Act, file a complaint within 12 months of the date the employee’s contract is terminated.


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


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

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 More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New 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 More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick 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 More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By 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 More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick 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 More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On 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 More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe 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 More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil 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 More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe 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 More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On 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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top