It’s a Matter of Time: The latest on monitoring, time theft, and productivity in a digital world

$595.00Add to cart

Includes: Webinar Recording with all Associated Materials

September 9, 2025

Emerging technologies have equipped employers with novel methods of monitoring employees and tracking productivity. The panel will explore the permissibility of monitoring and surveillance in relation to employees’ privacy concerns and discuss recent cases addressing “time theft”. Specifically, the speakers will address the following questions:

  • What constitutes employee “time theft”? How does “time theft” differ from a lack of productivity? Do employees’ intentions matter when determining if they committed “time theft”?
  • What types of evidence can employers rely on to demonstrate “time theft” or productivity issues? Will circumstantial evidence suffice?
  • How should an employer approach “time theft” and productivity concerns at a disciplinary meeting? Are employers required to provide advance notice of the dates and times in question? What is the union’s role in this process?
  • What are consequences for employers that impose discipline due to “time theft” without properly considering or inquiring into an employee’s disability? How should unions support members with disabilities accused of “time theft”?
  • What disciplinary measures have adjudicators and arbitrators deemed appropriate for “time theft”?
  • How are adjudicators balancing an employer’s right to enforce productivity and an employee’s right to privacy? Does the scope of surveillance differ for remote workers?
  • Are there any restrictions on how long employers can retain employee information gathered through surveillance? Can employers and adjudicators use previously collected data in a future dispute?
  • How should workplace policies and collective agreements effectively address “time theft”?

Employer’s decision to withdraw offer of employment was informed by unconscious bias and discriminatory, B.C. Human Rights Tribunal rules

2025-06-05T14:09:02-04:002025, British Columbia, Priority Alert|

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held that a government agency's decision to withdraw a conditional offer of employment during its security screening process was discriminatory. While accepting that the complainant's adversarial tone and language throughout the security screening process provided a basis for the employer to question the complainant's suitability for the position, the Tribunal held that the decision to rescind her offer was influenced by a stereotypical perception of her as a non-compliant and overly demanding Indigenous woman, and did not constitute an impartial evaluation of her qualifications or conduct. Finding that the applicant would have successfully begun a probationary period but for the discrimination, the Tribunal awarded the complainant $36,812.48 in lost wages, representing the wages the complainant would have earned during the six-month probationary period, and $15,000 for injury to dignity.

Read More

Some aspects of employer’s electronic monitoring policy were reasonable, others not, arbitrator rules

2025-03-17T10:31:07-04:002025, Priority Alert|

Allowing a grievance in part, an Ontario arbitrator ruled that some elements of a substance use treatment centre's electronic monitoring policy, introduced under Ontario's Working for Workers Act, 2022, were reasonable, while others were not. The arbitrator upheld the policy's provisions on monitoring cell phone use and e-mails, noting that, while these provisions required some clarification, they were nevertheless justifiable, as the policy clearly communicated the surveillance to employees, who had the option to use their own data rather than the employer's network and Wi-Fi. However, the arbitrator held that the policy was unreasonable in relation to network and internet use, finding the policy's monitoring of personal use on work-issued laptops to be excessive, since employees were permitted to use work-issued laptops for personal purposes outside of work hours, and ordered the parties to collaborate on revising this aspect of the policy to better balance employee privacy with the employer's legitimate business interests.

Read More

Interest arbitrator awards Ontario doctors 6.95% catch-up and 3.0% normative increase for 2024–2025 in light of inflation and the repeal of public sector wage cap legislation

2025-03-17T10:30:56-04:002025, Ontario, Priority Alert|

In the context of provincial physician shortages, particularly in underserved communities, an interest arbitrator awarded Ontario doctors a 9.95% compensation increase for the first year (2024–2025) of the Physician Services Agreement between the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association. The arbitrator allocated 6.95% of this increase for non-retroactive catch-up, to address significant inflation and to compensate for the impact of the now-invalidated Bill 124 restricting compensation increases in the parties' previous negotiations, while the remaining 3% was designated as a normative increase, matching the amount awarded to other healthcare unions in the hospital sector for the same period.

Read More

Federal Court of Appeal upholds pre-placement and random drug and alcohol testing for “safety-critical” workers in nuclear industry

2025-03-07T15:05:13-05:002025, Federal, Health and Safety, Labour Law|

March 7, 2025, eAlert No. 285 Dismissing an appeal of a Federal Court decision filed by six individuals employed in various safety-critical [...]

Read More

Court awards dismissed employee $25,000 in punitive damages based on employer’s termination letter purporting to withhold entitlements unless employee signed a waiver

2025-03-05T16:20:02-05:002025, British Columbia, Labour Law|

March 4, 2025, eAlert No. 602 A British Columbia judge held that an employee who was dismissed without cause was entitled to [...]

Read More

Department of Education ordered to pay teacher, principal, $35,000 and $45,000 damages, for breaches of collective agreement and statutory health and safety obligations arising from uncontrolled behaviour of special needs student

2025-02-27T12:33:51-05:002025|

A New Brunswick labour arbitrator has held that a Department of Education operating a provincial school board must pay a teacher and [...]

Read More
Go to Top