BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lancaster House - ECPv6.15.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://lancasterhouse.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Lancaster House
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230516T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230518T154500
DTSTAMP:20260408T122746
CREATED:20230322T031803Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T182055Z
UID:6616-1684224000-1684424700@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Atlantic Canada Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:Conference Co-Chairs\n\n \nJudith Begley\nLawyer\, Workplace Investigator\, and Mediator\nBegley Law \n\n\n \nAndrew Nielsen\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nTara Erskine\nEmployer Counsel\nMathews\, Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nChris Peddigrew\nArbitrator/Mediator and Vice-Chairperson\,\nNewfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nTracey Pinder\nAtlantic Regional Director\nCUPE \n\n\n \nMatt Hiltz\nExecutive Director and Chief Negotiatior\nNew Brunswick Nurses Union \n\n\n \nJessica Upshaw\nSolicitor\nNova Scotia Power \n\n\n \nKaren Milligan\nHR Manager\nHealth PEI \n\n\nTuesday\, May 16\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. AT \nWorkshop - Medical Information in Accommodation and Adjudication: Practical guidance for employers and unions\nMedical Information in Accommodation and Adjudication: Practical guidance for employers and unions\n\n\n \nJasmine Walsh\nChair\nNova Scotia Labour Board \n\n\n \nKaren Joudrey\nInstructor and Academic Coordinator Disability Management Certificate Program and the Department of\nOccupational Therapy Dalhousie University\n\n\n \nDawn Learning\nAtlantic Region Human Rights Representative\nCUPE \n\n\n \nAnnie Gray\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nIt is generally accepted that employers must request no more employee personal health information than is necessary for legitimate purposes such as administering sick leave or disability benefits\, providing accommodation under human rights legislation\, or ensuring workplace health and safety and/or an employee’s fitness to work. However\, the application of this principle to specific cases generates endless controversy because employers\, unions\, employees\, and healthcare providers often each have their own ideas of what is “reasonable.” This session is designed to provide a common framework that will enable workplace parties to balance employees’ privacy rights with employers’ needs for employee personal health information. \nGuided by experienced counsel and a medical expert\, participants will learn the legal framework governing the collection\, use\, and storage of employee personal health information\, practical strategies for obtaining and reviewing information from health care professionals\, and key principles regarding using medical information at arbitration. Participants will leave ready to: \n\nassess the reasonableness of requests for employees’ personal health information;\nevaluate the adequacy of information provided and respond appropriately to vague or deficient information;\napproach employees/union members about needed information with sensitivity;\nwrite requests that prompt timely\, useful responses from health care providers and medical experts;\nevaluate the appropriateness and utility of standardized medical information forms;\ndetermine what type of information should be obtained from different health care professionals (e.g. general practitioners\, medical specialists\, psychologists\, occupational therapists) and assess when specialist reports or independent medical examinations are necessary;\nrecognize when a health care professional is acting as an advocate or assuming an inappropriate role;\nsafeguard personal health information in compliance with legislation and in accordance with best practices; and;\nuse medical evidence effectively in the grievance and arbitration process\n\nWednesday\, May 17\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. AT \nPanel 1 - The Latest in Labour: Experts address key cases and legislative developments 9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. AT\nThe Latest in Labour: Experts address key cases and legislative developments\n\n\n \nDavid Conway\nAdjudicator\, Arbitrator\, Mediator and\nIndependent Counsel \n\n\n \nSandra Mullen\nPresident Nova Scotia Government & General\nEmployees Union \n\n\n \nJames LeMesurier\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nIn this panel\, seasoned experts will canvass significant legal developments of the past year\, discussing key cases\, ongoing litigation\, and legislative reforms. Topics to be addressed include issues of jurisdiction\, workplace substance use policies\, collective agreement issues\, proof of vaccination and vaccine mandate issues\, and human rights cases. Legislative updates from across the Atlantic provinces will also be discussed\, including emergency leave\, pay transparency\, and union strike rules. Final selection of topics takes place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nKeynote - The Other Wet Floor: Psychological Occupational Risk in Helping Professions 10:20 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. AT\nThe Other Wet Floor: Psychological Occupational Risk in Helping Professions\n\n\n \nJ.D. Gilmour\nManager of Employee Abilities and Return to Work\nHealth PEI \n\n\nBreak 10:40 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. AT \nPanel 2 -Recovering the Balance: Practical guidance on flexible work\, the right to disconnect\, and avoiding burnout 10:55 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. AT\nRecovering the Balance: Practical guidance on flexible work\, the right to disconnect\, and avoiding burnout\n\n\n \nFrank Demont\, K.C.\nArbitrator\nResolve Arbitration & Mediation Services \n\n\n \nMary Fougere\nNational Staff Representative\nCUPE \n\n\n \nEmily McDonald\nLawyer and Consultant\nHR Atlantic \n\n\nEmployers must consider their obligation to prevent mental health harms\, including burnout\, stress\, and the consequences of working remotely. Questions to be discussed include: \n\nHow have adjudicators and courts in recent cases defined an employer’s responsibilities and an employee’s rights when it comes to workplace stress\, burnout\, and other contributors to mental health harms?\nHow can employers and unions identify and prevent organizational factors that cause mental health harms? What steps can be taken by employers\, unions\, and workers to address these factors?\nHow can employers\, unions\, and workers actively reduce the mental health harms that may be associated with remote work?\nHow should the “right to disconnect” be defined in corporate policies where such policies are required by legislation? How has it worked in jurisdictions where this right has been legislated? Is it a necessary tool for the well-being of employees?\nDoes the right to disconnect assist in preventing mental health harms to employees who are not working traditional 9-to-5 shift schedules?\nHas remote work blurred the line between overwork and overtime? How can employers and unions ensure that there is a workable distinction?\nIn protecting and promoting workers’ mental health\, including efforts to prevent and reduce stress and burnout in the workplace\, what role is there for the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace?\n\nLunch 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Investigations under a Microscope: An examination of current best practices and recent developments 1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. AT\nInvestigations under a Microscope: An examination of current best practices and recent developments\n\n\n \nKrista Smith\nWorkplace Investigator Root and Branch \n\n\n \nRyan McCarville\nLawyer\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nRay Mitchell\nLegal Counsel\nInternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades\nDistrict Council 39 \n\n\nWorkplace investigators often grapple with issues of bias\, fact-finding\, and confidentiality that may emerge during an investigation. In this session\, experts will discuss important developments in this area\, in addition to practices and policies that safeguard fair and effective investigations: \n\nConsidering the need to preserve a fair\, adequate\, and effective investigation process\, what lessons can be drawn from recent cases about the proper scope of an employer’s investigation?\nWhat are the essential qualities or qualifications of a competent investigator? When should an external investigator be retained?\nHow do unconscious and implicit biases impact human rights investigations in the workplace? What can be done to avoid them?\nHow can investigators\, in the fact-finding and report-writing process\, address pervasive systemic discrimination in the workplace?\nHow does adopting a trauma-informed approach to conducting witness interviews affect an investigation?\nWhat is the role of the union in an investigation? What are the limitations of union involvement?\nWhat strategies can workplace parties implement to address the challenges of conducting investigations in a remote work environment? Is there any proven or perceived benefit to conducting workplace investigations in-person?\nWhat are best practices for drafting investigation reports?\nWhat are the crucial components of an anti-harassment policy? How can an organization adequately monitor its policies for effectiveness? What measures should an employer take when an allegation is not substantiated?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Disabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions 2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. AT\nDisabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nDr. Alexis Goth\nPhysician\nIntegrated Chronic Care Service (ICCS) \n\n\n \nJillian Houlihan\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nJames Green\nEmployer Counsel\nCox and Palmer \n\n\nWorkplace parties are familiar with applying principles regarding the duty to accommodate in cases of visible disabilities\, well-known conditions\, or conditions for which there exists a clear diagnostic test. However\, challenges often arise when an employee seeks accommodation for a condition that eludes diagnosis. In this session\, experts will address questions such as: \n\nWhat are common medical conditions that elude diagnosis or that are considered “diagnoses of exclusion”? Why does “Long COVID” fall within this list?\nIs a definitive diagnosis\, or “objective evidence\,” necessary to establish an invisible disability? How should employers and unions respond where there is a lack of available medical practitioners with the requisite knowledge or experience to assess and attest to the condition?\nHow can employers and unions effectively formulate requests for medical information in cases where an employee’s condition cannot be confirmed using a clinician’s diagnostic test?\nWhen sick leave abuse is a concern\, how can an employer distinguish between employees who have genuine\, difficult-to-diagnose disabilities\, and employees who are malingering? When will an employer be justified in seeking further information\, including a specialist’s report or an independent medical examination?\nMay an employer discipline or dismiss an employee who is frequently absent\, underperforming\, or exhibiting atypical workplace behaviours but who asserts that it is due to an as-yet undiagnosed disability? Does the fact that a disability is difficult to diagnose impact the assessment of whether the employer has accommodated the employee up to the point of undue hardship?\nHow do the stereotypes and stigmas associated with these medical conditions contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation?\nWhere an employee has a difficult-to-diagnose disability that manifests episodically\, is an employer legally permitted to request medical information from the employee on a periodic or ongoing basis?\nWhat types of accommodations may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent or chronic symptoms that may impact their ability to work? For example: What will help individuals coping with Long COVID? How can employers and unions cooperate to support such employees in the workplace?\n\nNetworking Reception 3:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. AT \nThursday\, May 18\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. AT \nPanel 5 - Digital Dignity: Protecting privacy in an era of workplace surveillance 9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. AT\nDigital Dignity: Protecting privacy in an era of workplace surveillance\n\n\n \nDavid Fraser\nPrivacy Lawyer and Partner\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nDaniel Leger\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nErin Delaney\nSolicitor\nDepartment of Justice and Public SafetyGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador\n\n\nHow can employers and unions ensure that workplace surveillance is reasonable and does not encroach on employees’ rights? In this panel\, experts will discuss best practices in balancing employee privacy against the use of monitoring technologies in the workplace. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat key items should employers and unions address in policies and collective agreement provisions governing privacy and surveillance?\nWhat workplace surveillance is permitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?\nDo proposed changes in the federal Digital Charter Implementation Act\, 2022 (Bill C-27) adequately address the criticism that existing privacy legislation does not comprehensively respond to the availability of mass data collection on employees?\nHow have arbitral attitudes towards workplace privacy evolved in response to modern surveillance technologies?\nWhat concerns do keystroke mapping technologies and other methods of surveillance pose for employees’ privacy and human rights?\nWhat is the proper balance between a remote employee’s right to privacy in their home and an employer’s legitimate supervisory interests?\nCan employees object to off-duty surveillance? If so\, how should off-duty surveillance be addressed in policies and collective agreements?\nWhat continuing practices should employers and unions apply to ensure that employee information is kept confidential and secure?\n\nBreak 10:20 a.m. – 10:35 a.m. AT \nPanel 6 - Off-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing freedom of expression and the right to a respectful workplace 10:35 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. AT\nOff-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing freedom of expression and the right to a respectful workplace\n\n\n \nLynne Poirier\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Vice-chair Canada\nIndustrial Relations Board and Nova Scotia Labour Board\n\n\n \nKevin Kindred\nSolicitor\, the Department of Justice\nGovernment of Nova Scotia \n\n\n \nLeah Kutcher\nIn-House Counsel\nNova Scotia Teachers Union \n\n\nWhere should the line be drawn between safeguarding employee freedom of expression and ensuring a workplace free from harassment and inappropriate or offensive communications? Is it relevant if an employee’s off-duty conduct is offensive to co-workers? In this panel\, experts will explore employer and union responsibilities in ensuring appropriate employee conduct\, both inside and outside the workplace. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat key provisions should be included in workplace policies and collective agreements to address inappropriate conduct? Can these provisions encompass off-duty conduct?\nAre employers permitted to limit how employees represent themselves while off-duty? Is the nature of the business relevant?\nCan employers or unions offer or require training regarding off-duty conduct?\nCan employers ban workplace discussions on controversial or political topics in the workplace? If so\, how would a topic be assessed as “political” or “controversial”?\nWhat are the duties of unions when representing members facing consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in the workplace? Is the union’s duty any different if the member is being disciplined for expressions made outside the workplace?\nDoes an employee have any duty to report a controversial off-duty statement by another employee?\nWhat are best practices for employers and unions to ensure that an employee’s Charter or Human Rights Act rights are supported while maintaining a workplace free from discrimination and harassment?\n\nLunch 11:50 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent? 1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. AT\nDisciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\n\n\n \nTrisha Perry\nMediator/Vice-Chair\nNew Brunswick Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal \n\n\n \nJames Farrell\nSolicitor and Staff Representative\nFFAW-Unifor \n\n\n \nKyle MacIsaac\nEmployer Counsel\nMatthews Dinsdale \n\n\nRights and responsibilities differ when an employer is engaging in job “coaching” or performance management as opposed to imposing formal discipline. In this session\, expert speakers will examine key issues pertaining to disciplinary processes\, addressing questions such as: \n\nHow can parties clearly differentiate job coaching and training\, performance management\, and discipline? When and to what extent can management take action to improve worker performance without this amounting to a formal warning or other disciplinary act?\nWhat circumstances trigger an employee’s right to union representation? How have arbitrators distinguished meetings or discussions which are merely “investigatory” or otherwise non-disciplinary from those which are disciplinary and attract procedural protections? Where an employee does have a right to union representation\, must an employer inform the employee of that right?\nDo employees have a qualified right to remain silent in investigative meetings where they reasonably believe a disclosure may expose them to discipline? May employees be disciplined solely due to their decision to remain silent? When employees are or may be subject to criminal charges in relation to the factual circumstances underpinning an investigatory or disciplinary meeting\, may those employees seek to protect themselves against self-incrimination?\nhat ought an employer do to ensure fairness toward an employee in the course of a disciplinary meeting or process? Where an employer fails to follow procedural requirements in relation to a disciplinary meeting\, or unnecessarily delays the disciplinary process\, will this impact an arbitrator’s willingness to uphold a disciplinary measure?\nWhere a union representative participates in a disciplinary meeting\, what is the scope of that representative’s role?\nHow may an employee’s conduct during a disciplinary meeting impact an arbitrator’s assessment as to whether to uphold the discipline imposed?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 8 - Is Virtual the New Reality? Debating the pros and cons of virtual labour relations 2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. AT\nIs Virtual the New Reality? Debating the pros and cons of virtual labour relations\n\n\n \nNoella Martin\nEmployer Counsel\nWickwire Holm \n\n\n \nBrenda Comeau\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nScott Sterns\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n\nAre virtual hearings a comparable substitute for in-person hearings? What is lost or gained when conducting hearings virtually?\n\na. Do virtual proceedings allow for more inclusivity and access to justice? If so\, how?\nb. Do virtual proceedings pose any concerns regarding credibility?\nc. Can demeanor and body language be assessed virtually?\nd. Have virtual proceedings reduced costs and delays?\n\n\nHow have parties adapted to bargaining virtually?\nWhat steps should labour relations professionals take to ensure privacy and confidentiality is respected during virtual proceedings?\nDo Canadian labour relations professionals have a “duty of technological competence” similar to duties imposed on American attorneys?\nAre additional technological safeguards necessary for virtual discussions regarding personal health information or other confidential matters?\nWhat steps should unions take to ensure that there is effective representation and cohesion among members who primarily communicate remotely?\nHow should virtual labour relations practices be addressed in workplace policies or collective agreements?\n\nConference ends – 3:45 p.m. \nConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/atlantic-canada-labour-law-conference/
LOCATION:Hotel Halifax\, 1990 Barrington Street\, Scotia Square\, Halifax\, Nova Scotia\, B3J 1P2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/portrait/halifax-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR