BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lancaster House - ECPv6.15.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Lancaster House
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:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Halifax
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:ADT
DTSTART:20240310T060000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:AST
DTSTART:20241103T050000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241105T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241105T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240709T195137Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250213T170627Z
UID:14135-1730809800-1730815200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Compliance and Compassion: Providing representation while accommodating disabilities and meeting professional obligations
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nSarah Atkinson\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nShannon Carson\nUnion Counsel\nMyers LLP \n\n\n \nMichael Horvat\nEmployer Counsel\nAird & Berlis LLP \n\n\nIn this webinar\, expert panelists will explore best practices for legal practitioners and labour relations professionals when representing employees who may present as “difficult to work with” (e.g. combative\, non-responsive\, or invested in their matter to an above-average degree) in internal complaints\, grievance or arbitration procedures\, or other proceedings\, outlining practical guidance for providing compassionate representation while meeting legal and regulatory obligations. Topics to be addressed include: \n\nWhat key rules of professional conduct establish legal practitioners’ obligations when representing grievors or complainants? When engaging with a grievor or complainant on behalf of an employer? What legal duties apply to union representatives?\nHow can parties distinguish a “vexatious” grievor or complainant from an individual who simply needs additional support? Is there any mechanism through which “vexatious” matters can be addressed on a preliminary basis?\nHow should legal practitioners and labour relations professionals respond when\, in the course of representing a grievor or complainant\, that individual:\n\nIs combative or hostile toward the representative or others?\nIs non-responsive?\nAppears excessively invested in the matter\, repeatedly contacting the representative\, the employer\, or others?\nAppear to have a diminished capacity to make decisions?\n\n\nHow may an employee’s disability impact how they engage with their representative and others? What signs may indicate that an employee has a mental health condition or other disability impacting their conduct? How should legal practitioners and labour relations professionals respond and what legal duties are engaged in this context?\nHow might trauma\, cultural factors\, or previous experiences of discrimination impact the manner in which an individual acts throughout a complaint or grievance? How might trauma-informed and intersectional approaches assist?\nHow can legal practitioners and labour relations professionals ensure that their own biases do not impact the manner in which they represent or engage with employees?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program contains 0 hour(s) and 45 minutes of Professionalism Content.\n\n\n\n\nThis program contains 0 hour(s) and 45 minutes of EDI Professionalism Content.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/compliance-and-compassion-providing-representation-while-accommodating-disabilities-and-meeting-professional-obligations/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/compliance-and-compassion.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241028T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241028T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240111T173330Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240730T163441Z
UID:11819-1730118600-1730131200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Grievance Arbitration Police Services Workshop: Current trends\, contested issues
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nChris Albertyn\nArbitrator \n\n\n \nTom Roper K.C.\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\n \nNini Jones\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\nMonday\, October 28\, 2024This session on grievance arbitration in the police services sector across Canada will be conducted by an experienced arbitrator together with leading union and management counsel. \nPanelists will explore recent decisions relating to current issues including the following: \n\nDischarge and discipline\nBenefits and benefit-related issues\nHuman rights and discrimination\nWorkplace harassment\nDisability and accommodation\nPrivacy and privacy-related issues / medical information\nSick leave and other leaves of absence\nMinimum staffing\, etc.\nTransfer and promotion\nAlcohol and drug addiction\nOff-duty conduct\nMandatory vaccination\nIndemnity for legal costs\nJurisdiction of arbitrators vs. human rights and police service appeal tribunals\n\nAttendees can expect to be updated on cases involving the principles of collective agreement interpretation\, including the following: \n\n“Plain meaning” rule / ambiguity\nContextual evidence of negotiating history\nEstoppel\nStatutory freeze issues\nThe requirements of good faith\nFairness and management rights\nRelevance of statute law\nReasons and judicial review\n\nThe emphasis will be on practical advice. Up-to-date materials will be provided with case summaries\, overviews and analyses prepared by Lancaster’s legal staff. \nWho should attend? The program is designed for: \n\nHR directors\, professionals and executives\nPolice chiefs\nUnion officers\, representatives and advocates\nGrievance advisors and committee members\nLabour lawyers/consultants\nArbitrators\, mediators and adjudicators\nDeputy police chiefs\n\nCPDWorkshop CPD\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n \n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n 
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/grievance-arbitration-police-services-workshop-current-trends-contested-issues/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/grievance-arbitration-police-services-2024-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241024T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241024T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240709T195031Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241016T141715Z
UID:14133-1729773000-1729778400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:New Developments in Workers’ Compensation: Experts discuss legislative changes and the latest decisions\, trends\, and policies
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nKaren Nordlinger\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Lawyer\nAaron Gordon Daykin Nordlinger LLP \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nTom McKenna\nNational Health and Safety Representative\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\n \nJulie Weller\nEmployer Counsel\nMathews Dinsdale \n\n\nIn this webinar\, expert panelists will address noteworthy cases\, cross-country trends\, and legislative and policy developments of the past year relating to workers’ compensation. The webinar will address questions such as: \n\nWhen will misconduct by a worker\, such as drinking and driving in the course of work\, cause the worker to be ineligible for compensation for related injuries?\nWhen will a contractor or subcontractor be considered a “worker” of the contracting company such that they are eligible for benefits and barred from pursuing civil claims relating to workplace injuries? What factors and policy considerations may the court or adjudicator take into account?\nWhat privacy protections apply to personal information about a worker received by an employer through a workers’ compensation claim?\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent court and tribunal decisions addressing coverage for chronic or traumatic mental stress? What evidence is required?\nWhat noteworthy legislative or policy changes have been implemented in the past year? For example:\n\nWhat is required by the “duty to cooperate” and “duty to maintain employment”\, recently introduced in British Columbia?\nIn which provinces are “gig workers” covered under workers’ compensation legislation?\nWhat changes have recently been implemented relating to coverage for psychological injuries sustained in the workplace and related evidentiary requirements?\n\n\n\nTopics will be finalized in the weeks prior to the webinar\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/new-developments-in-workers-compensation-experts-discuss-legislative-changes-and-the-latest-decisions-trends-and-policies/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/new-developments-in-workers-comp-6.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20241016
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20241019
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240214T201811Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241009T155744Z
UID:12304-1729036800-1729295999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ottawa Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:OverviewThe Ottawa Labour Law Conference is an annual event that serves as a vital forum for professionals\, academics\, and policymakers in the field of labor law. This conference gathers together experts and practitioners from across Canada and beyond to engage in meaningful discussions\, share insights\, and explore the latest developments in labor law and employment relations. With a focus on fostering dialogue and collaboration\, the conference provides a platform for attendees to gain a deeper understanding of the ever-evolving legal landscape that shapes labor relations and worker rights. It plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of labor law in Canada by facilitating the exchange of knowledge\, best practices\, and innovative ideas among those dedicated to advancing workers’ rights and the broader field of labor law. \nConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nWassim Garzouzi\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nJudith Parisien\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP\n\n\n \nChris Rootham\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nJena Montgomery\nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice \n\n\n \nOdessa O’Dell\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nJennifer Duff\nUnion Counsel\nShields Hunt Duff Strachan \n\n\n \nAaron Lemkow\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Nurses’ Association (ONA) \n\n\nWednesday\, October 16\, 2024Workshop*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference.After the Investigation: Defusing conflicts and restoring workplace relationships - 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.\n\n\n \nRoger Beaudry\nArbitrator/Mediator and Dispute Prevention/Resolution Consultant\nAptus Conflict Solutions \n\n\n \nMadeline Hall\nLawyer & Investigator\nMortimer Khoraych Workplace Investigations and Restorations \n\n\n \nChristopher Edwards\nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nLaura Ross\nBilingual Senior Officer\, Legal Branch\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nAllegations of bullying or harassment\, breaches of respectful workplace policies\, or other inappropriate behaviour often result in a formal investigation\, culminating in a report with findings and recommendations. However\, the investigation (and the imposition of discipline where misconduct is found to have occurred) may be only the first step in addressing conflicts that have emerged between co-workers. Indeed\, the investigation process itself may have the unintended result of further fracturing the workplace\, by pitting one group of employees against another\, or employees against supervisors. In this workshop\, experienced facilitators will share their expertise with participants in order to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to restore productive relationships after the investigation\, and to ensure that genuine closure is achieved. \n\nWhat are the most effective approaches to communicating with employees about the investigation while it is ongoing and after it has been completed? How can the employer assure employees that the investigation process is fair and objective\, and that it properly balances the rights and expectations of different groups within the workplace?\nWho is entitled to be apprised of allegations? And of statements by other parties to the investigation?\nWho is entitled to be advised of the conclusions in an investigation report? When might it be advisable to disclose the report’s findings with others in the workplace?\nWhat role does solicitor-client privilege play in the investigation process? Litigation privilege? Common law rules relating to confidentiality?\nIs it beneficial to hold a post-investigation meeting with the affected employees\, or the staff as a whole\, to discuss the outcome and to explain what changes will be implemented going forward?\nIn what circumstances should the employer consider hiring a professional mediator to deal with ongoing conflicts? When is one-on-one counselling appropriate?\nWhen does legislation require that a neutral investigator be appointed? When should this be done\, regardless of legislative requirements?\nDoes an apology by the offending parties play a useful role in defusing lingering tensions? What if an employee who behaved inappropriately is unremorseful and unwilling to accept responsibility?\nWhen should consideration be given to reassigning an employee (or employees) to a different work area?\nAfter an investigation\, what steps should be taken to reinforce expectations regarding applicable policies and acceptable behaviour at work?\n\nThursday\, October 17\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 1 - Current and Critical: Major developments in legislation and caselaw - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Olsen\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\n \nSophie Arseneault\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nAndrew Montague-Reinholdt\nUnion Counsel\nNelligan O’Brien Payne LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent significant developments in federal and provincial labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics such as: \n\nDiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation;\nFreedom of association;\nWorkplace investigations;\nDiscipline;\nPrivacy; and\nRemote work.\n\nThe panel will also examine recent legislative and other initiatives\, such as: \n\nFederal legislation to ban the use of strike replacement workers;\nThe report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related changes to the Act;\nRequiring companies to report the use of forced labour and child labour in the international supply chains; and\nThe Ontario government’s Working for Workers legislative series.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments. \nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 2 - Thinking Outside the Bots: Arbitrators weigh the pros and cons of artificial intelligence in labour relations - 10:50 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nClaire Kane Boychuk\nUnion Counsel \n\n\n \nJohn McLuckie\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie & Associates \n\n\n \nAndrew Tremayne\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n\n \nAndrew Vey\nEmployer Counsel\nVey WIllets LLP \n\n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to recruit and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced management and union counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a hypothetical union challenge to algorithmic management and to a program designed to vet job candidates. \nSpecific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing federal or provincial arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators likely find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 12:05 p.m. – 1:05 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Addressing arbitrator selection\, scheduling issues\, and other obstacles to effective arbitration - 1:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nArchana Mathew\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nMorgan Rowe\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nGrace Skowronski\nSenior Legal Counsel\nCanada Post \n\n\nArbitration\, once heralded for its efficiency\, is grappling with hurdles that may erode confidence in the process. Parties and practitioners have raised concerns regarding judicialization\, timeliness\, and arbitrator selection. In this panel\, experts will address the following: \n\nIs there a shortage of neutrals? If so\, what is the effect on the arbitration process? On scheduling? On confidence in the process? How can the shortage of arbitrators\, if it exists\, be remedied?\nWhat common bottlenecks do parties encounter in the arbitral process? How can labour practitioners eliminate unnecessary delays? Does the growing legalism of arbitration undermine its unique advantages\, or is it necessary to ensure procedural protections for parties?\nWhat options exist outside of the conventional arbitration process? .g. Med-arb\, arb-med? Final offer selection? In what circumstances should parties consider these alternatives?\nCan parties reduce arbitration timelines by participating in a virtual or hybrid format? Is there room to automate arbitration processes?\nWhat criteria should parties consider when selecting an arbitrator?\nWhat factors should labour ministries take into account in appointing arbitrators? If expertise and acceptability to the labour relations community are relevant factors\, how should they be measured? How can the Labour ministry’s appointment process be made more transparent? More accountable in terms of ensuring the fair and equitable assignment of cases?\n\nBreak: 2:20 p.m. – 2:35 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Is it Harassment or Isn’t It? An interactive panel based on actual case studies - 2:35 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nChris Davidson\nWorkplace Investigator\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nTia Hazra\nConsultation Team Lead\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\n \nLarissa Volinets Schieven \nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice Canada \n\n\nIn many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet the definition of harassment. However\, in other cases\, debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser knew or ought reasonably to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome\, offensive\, or harmful. In this session\, panelists will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address issues such as: \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role do a complainant’s personal characteristics – gender and race\, for example – play in determining whether certain conduct should reasonably be seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be unwelcome?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct or comments amount to harassment?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationship between the complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management’s response assessed by arbitrators?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nFriday\, October 18\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 5 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and legitimate employer concerns - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nArbitrator\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nLauren Brecher\nEmployer Counsel\nEmond Harnden LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Yazbeck\nDirector\, National Labour Relations\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\nHow can employers balance freedom of expression under the Charter with the need to maintain a productive and respectful workplace? In this session\, panelists will address: \n\nDo employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nWhat criteria should employers and unions consider when determining whether an employee’s speech or actions pose a legitimate concern to the organization’s reputation or operations? What actions should employers or unions take when employees’ expressions border on being disrespectful or offensive\, but are not overtly harmful?\nCan employers or unions set policies governing conduct for off work or social media expression? If so\, what are best practices for ensuring these policies respect individual freedoms and the reputation and operations of the workplace?\nCan employers monitor employee expressions outside the workplace or on social media? Can employers discipline employees for such expressions?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for potentially polarizing beliefs or actions? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\nHow can employers and unions effectively communicate expectations regarding employee expression\, appropriate workplace conduct\, and appropriate off-work conduct?\n\nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 6 - Bar None: Achieving gender inclusivity in the workplace - 10:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nTyler Boyce\nExecutive Director\nThe Enchante Network \n\n\n \nLori Harreman\nLegal Coordinator\nOntario Nurses’ Association \n\n\n \nDan Irving\, PhD\nAssociate Professor\nInstitute of Interdisciplinary Studies\nCarleton University \n\n\n \nGrace McDonell\nEmployer Counsel\nMcCarthy Tétrault \n\n\nEnsuring genuine inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals in the workplace contributes to providing a healthy\, safe\, and equitable work environment. In this session\, expert panelists will examine ways in which employers\, unions\, and employees can collaborate to create an inclusive workplace for all\, including through collective agreement language\, policies\, and other working arrangements. Final topics will be selected in consultation with panelists in the weeks preceding the conference. \nNetworking Lunch: 12:20 p.m. – 1:20 p.m. \nFireside Chat - 1:20 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nMadame Justice Karen Jensen\nJudge\nOntario Superior Court of Justice \n\n\n \nMeg Steele\nChief Human Resources Officer\nOttawa Police Service \n\n\nBreak: 2:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Using Non-Disclosure Agreements to Settle Harassment and Other Workplace Disputes: Is the case for abolition compelling? - 2:20 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Bennett\nMediator\, Arbitrator\, Investigator \n\n\n \nStephanie Lewis\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nMiriam Martin\nBarrister & Solicitor\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nNon-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are contractual agreements designed to maintain confidentiality among involved parties. While NDAs are frequently used in workplace settlements\, there is increasing apprehension about the potential of NDAs to silence victims of discrimination and harassment while shielding employers from reputational damage and other liabilities. In this session\, a panel of experts will address the following: \n\nWhat legislative/regulatory changes have been adopted respecting the use of NDAs in workplace disputes?\nHow are NDAs currently being used in workplace disputes?\nWhat information can be covered by an NDA?\nWhat are the negative ramifications of using NDAs in workplace disputes? What are the potential benefits? How might NDAs impact the victims of harassment and/or violence?\nWhat circumstances may render an NDA unenforceable?\nWhat happens if an employee\, former employee\, or the employer violates an NDA? How have courts and/or arbitrators treated breaches of NDAs?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nWorkshop - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 5.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 5.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\n\n\n\n\nConference - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 10.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 10.5 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ottawa-labour-law-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Rogers Centre Ottawa\, 55 Colonel By Drive\, Ottawa\, Ontario\, K1N 9J2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/oll-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241011T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241011T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240111T161714Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240913T165509Z
UID:11298-1728649800-1728662400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Interest Arbitration Police Services Workshop: Current issues\, proven practices
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nChris Albertyn\nArbitrator \n\n\n \nTom Roper K.C.\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\n \nNini Jones\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\nFriday\, October 11\, 2024In the police services sector\, if negotiations result in an impasse\, wages and working conditions are determined by labour arbitrators rather than by strike or lockout. In this virtual workshop\, seasoned experts will address key issues and trends in interest arbitration in the police services sector\, as reflected in the decisions of leading arbitrators across Canada. \nAttendees can expect to learn principles and practices relating to the following: \n\nSelecting an arbitrator\nPreparing for mediation and arbitration\nPresenting briefs and documents at arbitration\nExamining alternative formats including conventional arbitration\, med-arb\, arb-med\, final offer selection\, and first contract arbitration\nThe criteria that arbitrators apply including replication/comparability\, demonstrated need and total compensation\nThe treatment of substantive issues\, such as wage determination\, impact of inflation\, staffing standards\, contracting out\, appropriate benefit levels\, etc.\nThe treatment of process issues\, including ground rules\, package bargaining\, effect of pattern-setting settlements and awards\, status of unratified settlements\, etc.\nEffective remedies\, including interim awards\, final orders\, enforcement and judicial review\n\nThe emphasis will be on practical advice. Up-to-date materials will be provided with case summaries\, overviews and analyses prepared by Lancaster’s legal staff. \nWho should attend? The program is designed for: \n\nHR directors\, professionals and executives\nPolice chiefs\nUnion officers\, representatives\, advocates\nUnion and management negotiators and negotiating committee members\nLabour lawyers/consultants\nArbitrators\, mediators and adjudicators\nDeputy police chiefs\n\nCPDWorkshop CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/interest-arbitration-police-services-workshop-current-issues-proven-practices/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/interest-arbitration-police-services-2024-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241008T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241008T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240424T141221Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240918T195842Z
UID:12993-1728390600-1728403200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Tackling Workplace Impairment: Identifying causes\, addressing risks\, providing accommodation
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nNorm Keith\nPartner\, Employment & Labour Law\, KPMG Law LLP\nKPMG in Canada \n\n\n \nKelly VanBuskirk\nPartner\nLawson Creamer Lawyers \n\n\n \nDan Demers\nDirector of Business Development\nCannAmm Occupational Testing Services \n\n\nTuesday\, October 8\, 2024Half-Day Virtual WorkshopUse of alcohol\, cannabis\, and illicit substances has increased significantly as Canadians cope with mental health challenges and social isolation. In this virtual workshop\, experts will discuss recent cases on drug and alcohol testing\, fitness-for-duty assessments\, suitable accommodations\, and disciplinary sanctions\, addressing: \n\nWhat constitutes reasonable cause to justify alcohol and drug testing? Can the mere fact that a worker smells of cannabis or alcohol justify administering a reasonable cause test?\nWhat are some recent examples of treatment or monitoring mechanisms that have been found to be violations of privacy rights or excessively intrusive?\nWhat do recent decisions tell us about the circumstances required to justify post-incident testing? What qualifies as a “significant” incident that would be sufficiently serious to warrant an invasive drug or alcohol test? How does this analysis apply in the case of a near-miss incident?\nWhat must an employer demonstrate aside from the risk of residual impairment in order to establish that accommodation in a safety-sensitive position or workplace would constitute undue hardship?\nDo recent cases provide guidance on how to conduct an individualized assessment to determine whether an employee is fit for duty?\nTo what extent will an employer be required to accommodate an employee who fails to disclose or denies having an issue with substance use?\nWhere do recent cases draw the line on accommodating relapses\, ruling that any further obligation to tolerate relapses would amount to undue hardship?\nOn what grounds have arbitrators recently overturned last-chance agreements\, ruling that a violation of their terms is not sufficient to establish undue hardship?\nWhat factors do adjudicators consider when determining appropriate disciplinary penalties for violations of workplace drug and alcohol policies?\n\nCPDCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 3.16 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.1 hours per session under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.1 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours\, per session.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours\, per session.\n\n\n\n\nAdditional InformationRegistration Fee – Single Attendee\nLive workshop\, video\, and MP3 bundle – $920Live workshop – $575Video and MP3 – $575 \n(Please note\, bundles are designed for a single attendee\, please contact Customer Service for multi-user pricing. Registrations must be paid in advance of the webinar) \nPlease contact us by email\, or by phone at (416) 977-6618\, for discount pricing for additional participants and group orders. \nRegistration Information\nThe video recording\, MP3 file\, and materials are available for download and viewing one business day after the live workshop. After purchasing\, you will receive an e-mail with instructions on how to access and download the video recording\, MP3 file\, and materials.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/tackling-workplace-impairment/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/workplace-impairment.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241001T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241001T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240709T194924Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T181737Z
UID:14129-1727785800-1727791200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Public-Facing Employment: Protecting workers from harassment by customers\, patients\, students\, and other third parties
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nJeff Palamar\nArbitrator and Lawyer\nTaylor McCaffrey \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nNatasha Savoline\nEmployer Counsel\nBernardi Human Resource Law LLP \n\n\n \nKas Pavanantharajah\nUnion Counsel\nBlack Gropper \n\n\nAn employer’s obligation to protect workers from harassment is not limited to harassment by other employees and managers; it also may extend to harassment perpetrated by members of the public. Such situations present special challenges In this panel\, Lancaster’s expert speakers will address issues relating to third-party harassment in the workplace\, such as: \n\nWhat type of conduct constitutes harassment by customers\, patients\, students or other members of the public?\nDoes an employer have an obligation to protect employees from harassment by the public on the company’s social media sites? How does this interact with rights that members of the public may have to express themselves freely?\nWhat policies or practices can employers put into place to proactively guard against harassment by clients and other members of the public? How is this affected by the nature of the worksite (e.g. educational institution\, health care setting\, etc.)?\nWhat steps should an employer take to conduct an appropriate investigation into harassment by a member of the public? What challenges exist when the alleged third-party harasser will not comply with the investigation?\nWhat types of legal actions and remedies are appropriate where an employee has been harassed by a member of the public?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/public-facing-employment-protecting-workers-from-harassment-by-customers-patients-students-and-other-third-parties/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/public-facing-employment.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240926T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240926T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240709T194828Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240923T173201Z
UID:14131-1727353800-1727359200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Privacy Protection in a Wired Workplace: The Supreme Court of Canada sets new rules
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nSara Slinn\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nElisabeth Finney\nUnion Counsel\nBlack Burke Mayor LLP \n\n\n \nJustin P’ng\nEmployer Counsel\nOsler\, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP \n\n\nIn a recent ruling\, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that teachers employed by Ontario public school boards have a right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court’s decision limits the surveillance of electronic devices used by employees at work In this webinar\, panelists will explore: \n\nWhich employers are subject to the Charter? \nWhat categories of employees are protected from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter? How far does the protection go?\nWhen will a search be reasonable? When will it go too far?\nAre arbitrators obliged to apply the Charter of Rights?\nWhat limits can employer policies impose?\nDoes employer tracking and surveillance need to be communicated in advance in policies and collective agreements?\nWhat balance should be struck between an employer’s right to manage the workplace and employees’ privacy interests?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/privacy-protection-in-a-wired-workplace-the-supreme-court-of-canada-sets-new-rules/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/privacy-protection-2024.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240912T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240912T170000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235431
CREATED:20240214T185026Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240904T184437Z
UID:12292-1726144200-1726160400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:National Health & Safety Conference
DESCRIPTION:The Virtual Health & Safety Conference is a meticulously crafted event tailored to meet the needs of human resources\, industrial relations professionals\, executives\, union officers\, and representatives\, as well as health and safety/workers’ compensation specialists\, and labor and employment lawyers/consultants. \nThis premier gathering serves as a dynamic platform for industry thought leaders and practitioners to engage in insightful discussions and collaborative exchanges. The conference features illuminating panels that delve into crucial topics\, including the “Annual Check-Up\,” where experts meticulously dissect key cases and legislative developments\, offering participants a comprehensive understanding of the evolving legal landscape. \nConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nJamie Alyce Jurczak\nEmployer Counsel\nTaylor McCaffrey LLP \n\n\n \nDawid Cieloszczyk\nUnion Counsel\nKoskie Glavin Gordon \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nAlissa Demerse\nEmployer Counsel\nRoper Greyell LLP \n\n\n \nWade Poziomka\nUnion Counsel\nRoss & McBride LLP \n\n\n \nPeter Smith\nPresident and Senior Scientist\nInstitute for Work and Health \n\n\nThursday\, September 12\, 2024Introduction: 12:30 p.m. – 12:35 p.m. \nPanel 1 - Precedents and Prosecutions: Examining key caselaw\, enforcement action\, and legislative developments - 12:35 p.m. – 1:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nMichael Fisher\nUnion CounselRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nAminah Hanif\nUnion CounselCavalluzzo LLP \n\n\n \nMichelle Jones\nEmployer CounselLawson Lundell LLP \n\n\n \nJeremy Warning\nEmployer CounselMathews\, Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will address recent cases and legislative developments impacting workplace health and safety. Topics to be addressed include: \n\nWhat are notable trends in recent prosecutions for workplace health and safety violations? What key legislative developments impacting occupational health and safety have been implemented cross-country in the past year?\nWhen will an employer be held liable under occupational health and safety legislation for injuries or deaths that occur in the course of work that is not performed under the employer’s direct supervision or control? How does the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in  v. Greater Sudbury (City)\, which interprets Ontario’s occupational health and safety legislation\, apply to other jurisdictions?\nHow have arbitrators and adjudicators assessed the reasonableness of employer-ordered drug and alcohol testing in recent decisions?\nWhat key principles have emerged in recent caselaw regarding workplace harassment investigations conducted pursuant to occupational health and safety legislation? For example\, how much information regarding the investigation must an employer disclose to the union and/or the complainant? What consequences may flow from a failure to conduct an investigation?\nHow should workplace parties respond when employee’s human rights conflict with an employer’s occupational health and safety obligations?\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nBreak: 1:50 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. \nPanel 2 - Investigations through a Health and Safety Lens: Conducting compliant and effective incident and harassment investigations - 2:00 p.m. – 3:10 p.m.\n\n\n \nMadeleine Loewenberg\nEmployer Counsel\nLoewenberg Psarris Workplace Law LLP \n\n\n \nCarissa Tanzola\nUnion Counsel\nFilion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP \n\n\nEmployers have an obligation to ensure that workplace investigations are conducted effectively and comply with legislation\, workplace policies\, and collective agreements. These obligations extend to both investigations into allegations of harassment and investigations following workplace injuries or accidents. In this panel\, experts will address: \n\nWhat lessons can be drawn from recent caselaw about an employer’s duty to investigate claims of harassment? What about the essential elements of a fair\, adequate\, and effective investigation? Under what circumstances have investigations raised procedural fairness concerns?\nDo options besides an investigation\, such as alternative dispute resolution\, satisfy the duty to investigate under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?\nWhen will an employer’s request for post incident drug and alcohol testing be found unreasonable by an arbitrator?\nHow much should independence factor into who should investigate workplace incidents and harassment? How can employers determine whether an external investigator is necessary?\nWhat are best practices for ensuring that systemic inequities and unconscious biases do not impact the investigatory process?\nHow can investigators protect employee’s privacy rights during a workplace investigation?\nWhat considerations are particularly relevant to workplace investigations pertaining to off-duty conduct? Can employers justify access to employees’ personal devices for the purposes of an investigation?\n\nBreak: 3:10 p.m. – 3:20 p.m. \nKeynote - Dr. Jennifer Quaid: The illusion and the reality of corporate accountability for workplace health and safety offences: reflections on the Westray amendments 20 years later - 3:20 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nJennifer Quaid\nAssociate Professor\, Faculty of Law\nQueen’s University \n\n\nComing Soon. \nBreak: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Culture Shifts: Expert guidance on transforming organizational approaches to health and safety - 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.\n\n\n \nRobin Angel\nStrategic Advisor Occupational Health & Safety Correctional Services\nDepartment of Justice Nova Scotia \n\n\n \nKatherine Ferreira\nUnion Counsel\nKoskie Minsky LLP \n\n\n \nJoanne Hay\nDirector\, Health and Safety\nUnifor \n\n\n \nEleni Kassaris\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nDr. Lynda Robson\nScientist\nInstitute for Work and Health \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will explore best practices in building organizational cultures which prioritize health and safety. Speakers will address questions such as: \n\nHow does creating a strong organizational health and safety culture differ from an employer’s requirement to provide a safe workplace under occupational health and safety legislation?\nHow can employers and unions promote an organization-wide commitment to health and safety and achieve employee “buy-in” to health and safety initiatives? Should workplace parties seek to shift organizational culture through incentives\, consequences for non-compliance\, or some combination of the two?\nHow can organizations ensure a robust workplace health and safety culture in remote work settings? Will obligations imposed under occupational health and safety legislation apply in such cases?\nWill new technologies\, such as artificial intelligence (AI)\, assist or hinder the creation of a strong health and safety culture?\nHow have organizations achieved positive shifts in their health and safety cultures?\n\nClosing Remarks: 5:00 p.m. \nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 4 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 4 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\nThis event contains 3.5 technical hours and would be eligible for BCRSP CEU points. See the BCRSP website at www.bcrsp.ca for CEU point criteria.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/national-health-safety-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Health & Safety
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/national-HandS-header-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240910T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240910T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T153529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251106T184315Z
UID:12900-1725971400-1725976800@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Beyond the Open Door: Expert guidance on proactively recognizing and responding to employee mental health concerns
DESCRIPTION:Moderator \n\n\n \nDoug Sanderson\nArbitrator and Mediator\nDoug Sanderson Dispute Resolution \n\n\n\nSpeakers \n\n\n \nDr. Katy Kamkar\nDr. Katy Kamkar\, PhD\, CPsych.\nClinical Psychologist \n\n\n \nDiane Laranja\nEmployer Counsel\nFilion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP \n\n\n \nTroy Winters\nSenior Health and Safety Officer Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\n\nIt is now common knowledge that employers\, unions and employees all benefit from a safe and healthy work environment that protects workers’ mental health. However\, workplace parties continue to grapple with the best way to proactively guard against poor mental health in the workplace beyond simply reacting and responding to concerns once they arise. In this panel\, experts will discuss tools and practices that employers and unions can use to maximize employees’ psychological health and safety. \nQuestions to be addressed include: \n\nWhat is the difference between mental illness and mental health in a broader sense? Why is it important for workplaces to implement proactive measures that address both mental illness and mental health?\nWhat are an employer’s legal obligations to protect workers’ psychological wellbeing under occupational health and safety legislation?\nWhat are the key elements of a healthy work environment and how can employers effectively assess the health of their workplace?\nWhat are best practices for proactively addressing mental health in the workplace and what are the respective roles of the employer and union in this regard?\nWhat are the potential implications for employers should they fail in their obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment?\nCan unions be held liable for failing to protect the psychological health and safety of their membership?\nWhat resources are available? How useful/reliable are they?\n\n\nAccreditation \nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/beyond-the-open-door-expert-guidance-on-proactively-recognizing-and-responding-to-employee-mental-health-concerns/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/speaker-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240827T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240827T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T153448Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240730T174248Z
UID:12901-1724761800-1724767200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Can We Be Friends? Navigating workplace interactions in an increasingly conflicted world
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nJudith Allen\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Workplace Investigator\nArbitration Investigation Mediation (AIM) \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nTerry Downey\nUnion Representative\nSEIU Local 1 Canada \n\n\n \nEleni Kassaris\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nJen Magnus\nFounder/President\nMagnus Consulting \n\n\nWorkplaces bring together employees with diverse beliefs and opinions. In this webinar\, expert panelists will examine legal principles and best practices for navigating workplace interactions in an increasingly polarized world and building respectful\, cohesive workplaces. \nThe webinar will address questions including: \n\nWhat does research suggest about the importance of cultivating workplace friendships? What impact does this have on job satisfaction\, productivity\, and mental health? What are the potential downsides?\nShould employers encourage employees to restrict their interactions to work-related exchanges? Does allowing or encouraging interaction on subjects beyond work-related topics increase the risk for conflict or potential litigation?\nWhat do recent cases suggest about the line between safeguarding free speech at work and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe work environment? Can employees express political or controversial opinions in the workplace? When will an employee be subject to discipline for such statements?\nAt what point must an employer intervene where employees are in conflict due to differing beliefs or opinions? What is the role of the union in responding to these conflicts?\nCan employees be disciplined for statements made when interacting with other employees outside of the workplace?\nWhat steps can employers and unions take to encourage a positive\, cohesive work environment while minimizing the risk of harmful conflict or inappropriate comments by employees regarding their beliefs or opinions?\nWhat is the responsibility of the employer to monitor and control gossip?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/can-we-be-friends-navigating-workplace-interactions-in-an-increasingly-conflicted-world/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/can-we-be-friends.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240815T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240815T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T153401Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240923T144013Z
UID:12902-1723725000-1723730400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Recovering the Balance: Practical guidance on flexible work\, the right to disconnect\, and avoiding burnout
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nMireille Giroux\nVice-Chair\nOntario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nMeghan Burton\nOrganization Development Advisor\nMental Health Commission of Canada \n\n\n \nTahir Khorasanee\nEmployer counsel\nSteinbergs LLP \n\n\n \nSogol Naserian\nUnion Counsel\nShields Hunt Duff Stratchan \n\n\nIn this webinar\, expert panelists will provide practical guidance on how employers and unions can identify and prevent burnout and related mental health harms through proactive changes to working arrangements and workplace culture. \nSpeakers will address questions such as: \n\nWhat is “burnout”? How does it differ from stress or anxiety? What does evidence suggest causes burnout? What signs may indicate that an employee is experiencing burnout or harmful levels of stress?\nWhat are employers’ legal responsibilities when it comes to burnout and workplace stress? How should employers and unions respond when employees suggest or exhibit signs that they are overly stressed or burnt out?\nHow can employers and unions identify organizational factors that contribute to or cause burnout and undue stress? What tools\, guidelines\, or other resources may be of assistance in identifying organizational risk factors?\nWhat does initial evidence suggest about the impact of remote work on employee mental health? How can employers develop remote work policies that maximize mental health benefits and minimize potential harms?\nDo employees have a “right to disconnect” from work outside of business hours? Is such a right practicable for employees who do not work traditional “9 to 5” hours? In jurisdictions where such a right has been implemented through legislation\, has it proven to be effective?\nWhat types of flexible work arrangements can workplace parties implement to address problems of overwork and burnout? What challenges may arise in implementing such arrangements in unionized and non-unionized workplaces?\nWhat organizational or policy changes may be made to promote mental health and minimize burnout and undue stress? What types of provisions to this effect can or should be negotiated through collective bargaining?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/recovering-the-balance-practical-guidance-on-flexible-work-the-right-to-disconnect-and-avoiding-burnout/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/recovering-the-balance-4.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20240807T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20240807T133000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240619T152747Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240807T145035Z
UID:13618-1723033800-1723037400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Lancaster Speaker Series: Dr. Dayna Lee-Baggley – The Burnout Burger: The role of psychological safety in preventing burnout in the workplace
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nDr. Dayna Lee-Baggley\n\n\nRates of burnout have never been higher. However\, the conventional focus on self-care falls short. In this innovative presentation\, Dr. Dayna will present a more comprehensive strategy to address burnout known as “the Burnout Burger”. The Burnout Burger highlights that burnout is not just the responsibility of the individual. Instead\, the individual is squeezed between organizational and cultural factors that also influence burnout. Dr. Dayna will present the science of burnout and actionable strategies to address the Burnout Burger\, including the role of psychological safety in targeting burnout. Attendees will gain insight into cutting-edge\, evidence-based tips and techniques\, empowering individuals\, leaders\, and workplaces to effectively address burnout and foster the well-being of both employees and organizations. \nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 1 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hour under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1 Continuing Professional Development hour.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1 Continuing Professional Development hour.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nAdditional InformationRegistration Fee – Single Attendee\nLive webinar\, video\, and MP3 Bundle: $195\nLive webinar: $125\nVideo and MP3: $125 \n(Registrations must be paid in advance of the webinar)\nPlease contact us by email\, or by phone at (416) 977-6618\, for discount pricing for additional participants and group orders. \nRegistration Information\nThe video recording and MP3 file are available for download and viewing one business day after the live event. After purchasing\, you will receive an e-mail with instructions on how to access and download the video recording and MP3 files. For purchases for upcoming events\, once the video recording and MP3 file are available\, registrants will receive an update e-mail informing them that the links are now ready.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/the-burnout-burger-the-role-of-psychological-safety-in-preventing-burnout-in-the-workplace/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Lancaster Speaker Series,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/burnout-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240801T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240801T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T153321Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240513T191124Z
UID:12903-1722515400-1722520800@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Adapting to an Older Workforce: Accommodation\, benefits\, retirement options
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nColin Johnston\nMediator Arbitrator\nColin Johnston Mediation Arbitration Services Inc. \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nRandy Slepchik\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie & Associates LLP \n\n\n \nCristina Wendel\nEmplyer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\nHow can workplaces effectively cultivate an environment that is inclusive and equitable for employees of all ages? This webinar will examine questions surrounding mature employees in the workplace\, covering topics such as accommodation and discrimination\, the duty to inquire\, retirement\, and benefit plans. \nIn particular\, speakers will address: \n\nWhen and how should employers approach employees whose performance may be impacted by age-related disabilities\, such as early-stage dementia\, hearing loss\, or mobility issues? Are employers required to modify duties or reduce work performance standards in these cases?\nWhat types of alternative work arrangements can be offered to employees nearing retirement?\nIs it discriminatory to:\n\nDeny promotions to older workers based on the assumption that they may retire soon;\nProvide flexible work arrangements to older workers without offering the same options to younger workers;\nSuggest retirement to employees;\nTerminate employee benefits at age sixty-five;\nSpecify a retirement age in collective agreements; or\nImplement age-based reductions in benefits associated with retirement?\n\n\nMust retiree resource pools be negotiated in a collective agreement in order to be offered to retiring employees?\nWhat kinds of programs best facilitate mentorship and knowledge transfer?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/adapting-to-an-older-workforce-accommodation-benefits-retirement-options/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/adapting-to-older-workforce-3.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240718T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240718T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T153240Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240708T185541Z
UID:12904-1721305800-1721311200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Lancaster’s Workplace Essentials: A primer on remedies for breach of the collective agreement
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nMaheen Merchant\n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nGabriel Joshee-Arnal\nEmployer Counsel\nNeuman Thompson \n\n\n \nHeather L. Robertson\nUnion Counsel\nGerrand Rath Johnson \n\n\nIn this installment of Lancaster’s Workplace Essentials webinar series\, expert panelists will provide attendees with a comprehensive introduction to the types of remedies parties can seek for breach of the collective agreement and the appropriate circumstances under which to seek such remedies. \nThe webinar will address such questions as: \n\nWhat is the difference between a “declaration” and a “quia timet” or compliance order?\nHow will an arbitrator quantify damages for losses suffered due to breach of the collective agreement? What is the “make-whole” principle?\nWhen can an employer award pay damages in lieu of reinstatement?\nWhat are “non-monetary losses”? When will an arbitrator award damages for such losses?\nWhere a breach of the collective agreement may also amount to a tort or a breach of employment-related legislation\, do arbitrators have jurisdiction to address these additional causes of action?\nWhat are “general”\, “aggravated”\, and “punitive” damages? What are “damages for mental distress”? Are these types of damages available for breach of the collective agreement and\, if so\, in what circumstances will they be awarded?\nWhen may damages “to the union at large” be awarded?\nWhat is the “duty to mitigate” and when does it apply? When does it not apply? How might a party’s failure to mitigate impact the award of damages?\nWhat test will an arbitrator apply when determining if and when to award interim relief\, i.e. relief that is granted prior to a hearing on the merits?\nCan arbitrators award additional items such as interest\, compensation for tax consequences\, or costs? If so\, when?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/lancasters-workplace-essentials-a-primer-on-remedies-for-breach-of-the-collective-agreement/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/workplace-essentials-breach-agreement.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240704T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240704T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240322T152851Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240513T192247Z
UID:12895-1720096200-1720101600@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Returns that Work: Expert guidance on navigating the return of injured or ill employees to work
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nDavid Mombourquette\nChairperson\nNew Brunswick Labour and Employment Board \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nJ.D. Gilmour\nManager of Employee Abilities and Return to Work for Health PEI \n\n\n \nDana F. Hooker\nEmployer counsel\nDLA Piper \n\n\n \nBrendan McCutchen\nUnion Counsel\nWright Henry LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will provide guidance on ways that employers\, unions and employees can collaborate to ensure a successful and enduring return to work and address accommodation considerations\, workplace disability management systems\, and the legal landscape. \nSpecifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat benefits will employers\, unions\, and employees experience from implementing a successful disability management program and return-to-work process?\nWhat are the employer’s human rights obligations in returning a disabled employee to work? Does the employee have to return to the pre-leave position? What amounts to “undue hardship” for the employer in accommodating the returning employee?\nWhat role do the union and employee play in the return-to-work and accommodation process? How can these parties facilitate a successful and lasting return to work?\nWhat medical information\, if any\, is the employer entitled to when assessing an employee’s return to work and accommodations needs? How do functional abilities forms differ? When are independent medical examinations justified? Can the employment relationship be legally frustrated as a result of an employee’s refusal to provide medical information?\nWhat are other legal considerations in returning an employee to work? How does occupational health and safety factor in? What additional considerations apply to returning employees to work whose condition was a result of a workplace injury or illness? What privacy laws apply?\nHow can workplace parties ensure strong organizational support for employees returning to work after a leave of absence? How can employee benefits be structured to promote return to work? What measures can be taken to increase the chances of an enduring return to work?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n \n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n \n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n 
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/returns-that-work-expert-guidance-on-navigating-the-return-of-injured-or-ill-employees-to-work/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/returns-that-work.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240625T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240625T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240405T153139Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240405T153459Z
UID:13035-1719316800-1719331200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:From Conflict to Calm: Dealing with high-conflict behaviour in the workplace (Virtual Event)
DESCRIPTION:Program Leader\n\n \nMichael Lomax\nMediator \n\n\nHigh-conflict behaviour is characterized by unmanaged emotions\, extreme reactions\, preoccupation with blaming others\, and prolonged\, unresolved conflict. Such behaviour not only seriously damages relationships in the workplace but also frequently results in complaints of bullying and harassment\, grievances and other legal headaches for both employers and unions. This in-depth training session will equip participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to prevent high-conflict behavior from disrupting both employer and union operations and giving rise to costly litigation. \nParticipants will learn: \n\nBrain science behind high-conflict behaviour\, including current knowledge about High-Conflict Personalities (HCPs)\nPrinciples of progressive discipline and accommodation that apply to dealing with high-conflict behaviour\nStrategies for managing your own anxiety when dealing with HCPs\nApproaches to coaching HCPs to take responsibility for resolving their own conflicts in the workplace\nPractical techniques ready to be used in the workplace\, including:\nConnecting skills – using empathy\, attention and respect (E.A.R.) to communicate and build effective working\nrelationships with HCPs\nAssertion skills – using brief\, informative\, friendly\, but firm (B.I.F.F.) responses to counter misinformation or\nhostility\n\nPlease contact customerservice@lancasterhouse.com for more details. \nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 4 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may count this program for 4 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 4 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/from-conflict-to-calm-dealing-with-high-conflict-behaviour-in-the-workplace-virtual-event/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Skills Training
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/conflict-calm.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240620T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240620T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240118T172138Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240711T133547Z
UID:11983-1718886600-1718892000@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Extraordinary Harms\, Extraordinary Remedies: Learning from exceptional damage awards in human rights and arbitration cases
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nJeff Palamar\nArbitrator and Lawyer\nTaylor McCaffrey \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nThelma Zindoga\nEmployer Counsel\nBlake\, Cassels & Graydon LLP \n\n\n \nBalraj Dosanjh\nPensions Counsel\nCavalluzzo LLP \n\n\nIn recent years\, we have seen an upward trend in damages awards\, with employers paying a steep price for failing to meet their legal obligations in the workplace. In this webinar\, a panel of experts will examine recent caselaw where exceptional damages have been made\, and will address the following questions: \n\nWhat are the different kinds of damages an employee may seek? General? Moral? Harm to dignity? Aggravated? Punitive?\nDo arbitrators and tribunals have the authority to award the same kinds of damages as the courts?\nIn what circumstances will a decision maker order damages for the failure to investigate? Can a decision-maker order damages for the failure to investigate where it has determined that no human rights violation occurred?\nWhen are employers at risk of aggravated damage awards?\nWhat evidentiary threshold does an employee have to meet to support an award of aggravated damages?\nWhat kind of conduct will justify an award of punitive damages? For example\, when will this kind of award be made in a case involving bullying and harassment or termination? What can employers do to guard against punitive damages?\nWhen will a damages award amount to double recovery?\nWhat considerations will courts take into account in assessing an employee’s duty to mitigate their losses?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/extraordinary-harms-extraordinary-remedies-learning-from-exceptional-damage-awards-in-human-rights-and-arbitration-cases/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/extraordinary-harms-remedies-3.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20240617T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20240618T163000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20230906T193721Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240612T202022Z
UID:10319-1718625600-1718728200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Workplaces that Work: Building and maintaining productive union-management relationships (Virtual Event)
DESCRIPTION:Both days start at 12:00 p.m. ET\nBoth days end at 4:30 p.m. ET\nIn partnership with the University of Toronto Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources. \nProgram Leader\n\n \nBlaine Donais\nLawyer and Mediator\nWorkplace Fairness International \n\n\n \nAlex Brat\nSenior Executive Director\, Labour Relations\nUniversity of Toronto \n\n\nProgram DetailsCollective bargaining\, contract administration\, and occupational safety have always involved close contact between unions and employers\, but the areas of required interface have increased dramatically and become more complex. Protecting psychological health and safety\, preventing harassment\, promoting equity\, diversity\, and inclusion (EDI)\, and ensuring civility and respect are all tasks that require positive\, productive working relationships between unions and employers. This intensive two-day seminar will prepare management and union representatives to work together on these issues. \nThrough panel discussions and comprehensive walkthroughs with experts\, participants will learn to: \n\nAppreciate the legal and practical roles of union and employer representatives in developing and maintaining a productive working relationship;\nReduce the risk of negative conflict between workplace participants;\nPromote a healthy workplace;\nBuild the communication framework and trust necessary to deal with key areas of mutual interest to employers and unions\, including:\n\nProtecting psychological health and safety;\nPreventing harassment and violence;\nPromoting equity\, diversity\, inclusion\, and belonging;\nEnsuring civility and respect;\nRestoring workplaces that have become toxic.\n\n\n\nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 8.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 8.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 8.5 hours per session under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 8.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 8.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 8.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours\, per session.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 8.5 Continuing Professional Development hours\, per session.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/workplaces-that-work-building-and-maintaining-productive-union-management-relationships-toronto/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Professional Learning Program
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/workplaces-that-work-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240613
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240615
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20231109T142132Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T155130Z
UID:11145-1718236800-1718409599@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Calgary Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Sponsored by:We would like to thank Field Law for their generous sponsorship of the 42nd Annual Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference presented by Lancaster House. \nThe Westin Calgary - Discounted Room\nBook by Friday\, May 10\, 2024 \nBook NowCalgary Labour Arbitration and Policy ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nKristan McLeod\nUnion Counsel\nChivers Carpenter Lawyers \n\n\n \nLaura Mensch\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nKaren Scott\nArbitrator \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nE. Wayne Benedict\nUnion Counsel\nMcGown Cook Barristers & Solicitors\n\n\n \nJames Casey\nArbitrator/Mediator Labour\nArbitration + Mediation \n\n\n \nStephanie Henry\nEmployer Counsel\nBennett Jones LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Lardner\nUnion Representative\, Disputes and Arbitration\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\n \nErin Ludwig\nAssociate General Counsel\nLabour and Employment Legal and Privacy\nAlberta Health Services (AHS) \n\n\n \nKathryn Oviatt\nChief of the Commission and Tribunals\, Alberta Human Rights Commission \n\n\nThursday\, June 13\, 2024Workshop*Workshops sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nBreakfast: 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. M.T. \nConcurrent Workshops:\n(The schedule below will run concurrently for all three workshops until 4pm) \nWorkshop 1: Disabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nAshton Butler\nEmployer Counsel\nMLT Aikins \n\n\n \nDr. Charl Els\nPsychiatrist\, Addiction Specialist\, and Occupational Physician \nClinical Professor\nDepartment of Psychiatry and Department of Medicine\nUniversity of Alberta \n\n\n \nSophie Purnell\nEmployee Counsel\nPurnell Employment Law \n\n\n \nAnne Wallace\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\nChallenges often arise in accommodating employees with conditions that cannot be identified by a clear diagnostic test or that are not yet well-understood within the medical community. In this session\, expert panelists will examine key legal principles and best practices for accommodating employees with these conditions. Speakers will address: \n\nExamples of common medical conditions that elude diagnosis\, or that are considered “diagnoses of exclusion” (including “long COVID”);\nLegal limits on the type and extent of medical information that employers can request from employees;\nHow to effectively formulate requests for medical information where an employee’s condition cannot be confirmed using a clinician’s diagnostic test;\nHow to respond when there is a lack of available medical practitioners with the requisite knowledge or expertise to assess and attest to an employee’s condition;\nHow to approach employees/union members about needed information with sensitivity;\nHow stereotypes and stigmas associated with such medical conditions can contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation;\nTypes of accommodations that may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent or chronic symptoms;\nWhether an employer can 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; and\nUnderstanding when undue hardship has been established and the duty to accommodate is at an end.\n\nWorkshop 2: Reading it Right: Essential and emerging principles of collective agreement interpretation \n\n\n \nDavid Lardner\nUnion Representative\, Disputes and Arbitration\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\n \nChris S. Monfette\nEmployer Counsel\nNeuman Thompson \n\n\n \nLeanne Young\, K.C.\nLegal Counsel\,\nChartered Arbitrator\, Mediator and Adjudicator\nResolve ADR \n\n\nAn understanding of the principles of contract interpretation is indispensable for anyone involved in the negotiation or administration of a collective agreement\, from front-line managers and union representatives to advocates in the arbitration process. The ground rules of collective agreement interpretation have seen a notable shift in recent years. While the traditional techniques of reading a collective agreement\, such asthe “plain meaning” rule\, still play a central role\, arbitrators increasingly utilizeuse a more “contextual” approach that takes into account relevant background in order to determine the parties’ intent. In this workshop\, experienced counsel will equip participants with the knowledge they need to deal effectively with the wide array of interpretation disputes that arise in a unionized setting. \n\nWhat are the most commonly applied rules of collective agreement interpretation?\nWhat is the difference between the “plain meaning” approach and a purposive approach?\nWhen can evidence of past practice or negotiating history be used as an aid to interpretation?\nHow do arbitrators reconcile negotiated contract language and the contrary provisions of employment-related statutes\, e.g. human rights and employment standards legislation?\nWhat is “contextual evidence\,” as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sattva case? In what circumstances can such evidence be admitted and relied upon to shed light on the meaning of a disputed clause?\nHow has the use of the “contextual” approach changed the way in which established rules of interpretation are applied?\nWhat are the limits of contextual evidence as an interpretive tool?\nHow have arbitrators in recent cases utilized contextual evidence to resolve disputes about the proper interpretation and application of a collective agreement provision?\n\nWorkshop 3: Denial\, Defensiveness\, and Personality Disorders: Dealing with difficult accommodations \n\n\n \nShelly Bischoff\nFounder & Director\nPtolemy & Associates Inc. \n\n\n \nMonica Bokenfohr\nEmployer Counsel\nNeuman Thompson \n\n\n \nCherie Langlois-Klassen\nUnion Counsel\nBlair Chahley Klassen \n\n\n \nDr. Perry Sirota\nClinical & Forensic Psychologist\nSirota Psychological Services \n\n\nAccommodating employees with disabilities that impair their judgment\, perception\, and ability to cooperate can be challenging. Unfortunately\, mental health disabilities\, such as mood disorders\, can often impact the very abilities necessary for an individual to engage in the accommodation process. \nWorking through interactive exercises and realistic scenarios with the guidance of experts\, participants will develop the knowledge and skills necessary to: \n\ndevelop an understanding of how common disabilities may impede a worker’s ability to participate in the accommodation process;\ndemonstrate effective communication skills when interacting with resistant or uncooperative employees;\nunderstand responsibilities surrounding the duty to inquire\, obtaining medical records\, and related privacy legislation;\ncomply with union and management legal obligations when workers are unwilling or unable to participate in the accommodation process; and\nidentify when the threshold of undue hardship is reached.\n\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Schedule\n\n\nIntroductory remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 9:10 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nMorning break: 10:25 a.m. – 10:40 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 10:40 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nLunch: 11:55 a.m. – 1:05 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 1:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nAfternoon Break: 2:20 p.m. – 2:35 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 2:35 p.m – 4:00 p.m M.T.\n\n\nCocktail networking reception: 5:00 p.m – 7:00 p.m M.T.\n\n\nCo-chair remarks and introduction of keynote: 7:00 p.m – 7:05 p.m M.T.\n\n\n\nKeynote - The Honourable Chief Justice Ritu Khullar - 7:10 p.m. – 7:40 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nRitu Khullar\nThe Honourable Chief Justice Ritu Khullar \n\n\nEvening Plenary: Arbitrating AI: Debating the strengths and limitations of AI in labour relations - 7:45 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nWilson Chan\nEmployer Counsel\nMathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\n \nNatalia Makuch\nUnion Counsel\nChivers Carpenter Lawyers \n\n\n \nKelly Williams-Whitt\nArbitrator/Mediator\nProfessor\, Human Resources and Labour Relations\nDean\, Faculty of Business\, Communication Studies and Aviation\, Mount Royal University \n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to select and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced union and management counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a union challenge to algorithmic management drawn from US caselaw and a challenge to a program designed to vet job candidates. Specific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators in Alberta find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\nFriday\, June 14\, 2024Breakfast: 8:00 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. M.T. \nPlenary 2 - Current and Critical: Major developments in legislation and caselaw - 8:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nGreg Francis\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nMaurice Dransfeld\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nDana Christianson\nUnion Lawyer\nSeveny Scott Lawyers \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will examine recent significant developments in federal and provincial labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics such as: \n\ndiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation;\ngovernment intervention in collective bargaining;\nprivacy;\ndiscipline;\ncontracting out\, statutory freeze issues\, and illegal strikes; and\nkey issues at interest arbitration\, including inflation\, recruitment and retention\, minimum wage increases.\n\nPanelists will also discuss recent legislative initiatives\, such as: \n\nFederal legislation to ban the use of strike replacement workers;\nThe recent report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related changes to the Act;\n\n\nLimiting the importation of goods involving the use of forced labour and child labour in international supply chains; and\nThe impact of Alberta’s recently introduced Public Sector Employer Amendment Act\, 2023.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nMorning break: 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. M.T. \nPlenary 3 - Off-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing employees’ freedom of speech and employers' interests - 10:15 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nMelissa Luhtanen\nSenior Legal Counsel\nAlberta Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nKelly Nicholson\nEmployer Counsel\nField Law \n\n\n \nDan Scott\nPartner\nSeveny Scott \n\n\nTensions sometimes arise between employee free speech and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. How can these arguably competing rights and obligations be balanced? In this session\, a panel of experts will address these questions: \n\nWhat is the line between safeguarding employee free speech and ensuring a respectful and safe work environment? Do employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nCan employers discipline employees for private statements and/or expressions made outside the workplace?\nTo what extent will arbitrators consider Charter rights and values such as freedom of expression in the context of off-duty conduct?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for their potentially polarizing beliefs? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\n\nBreak: 11:20 a.m. – 11:35 a.m. M.T. \nConcurrent session: 11:35 a.m. – 12:35 p.m. M.T.\nPick 1 of 3 \nConcurrent 1: Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\nConcurrent 2: Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\nConcurrent 3: Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces \nLunch: 12:35 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. M.T. \nConcurrent session continued: 1:45 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. M.T.\nPick 1 of 3 \nConcurrent 1: Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\nConcurrent 2: Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\nConcurrent 3: Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces \nAfternoon break: 2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. M.T. \nPlenary 4 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios - 3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nKait Carey\nLawyer and Workplace Investigator\nSouthern Butler Price \n\n\n \nElla Henry\nCounsel\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\n \nJackie Laviolette\nEmployer Counsel\nMatthews Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\nIn Alberta\, workplace harassment is defined as “any single incident or repeated incidents of objectionable or unwelcome conduct\, comment\, bullying or action by a person that the person knows or ought reasonably to know will or would cause offence or humiliation to a worker\, or adversely affects the worker’s health and safety.” In many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition. In many instances impugned conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition\, but in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser ought reasonably to have known that certain comments or conduct would be unwelcome. \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role does a complainant’s lived experience as someone of a particular gender\, race\, or ethnicity play in determining whether certain conduct should be reasonably seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be offensive or humiliating?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct ought reasonably to have been known to be offensive?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationships between complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\nConcurrent SessionsConcurrent 1 - Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\n\n\n \nAlison Adam\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nDev Chankasingh\nLabour Arbitrator\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator\, Employment Adjudicator\nDev A. Chankasingh Professional Corporation \n\n\n \nDavid Mercer\nUnion Counsel\nNickerson Roberts Holinski & Mercer \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles and best practices in conducting fair\, adequate\, and effective investigations into human rights-related allegations. The panel will address questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process? What procedural flaws have been found to render an investigation unfair or inadequate?\nWhen is retaining a third-party investigator necessary? What other alternatives are possible?\nCan the grounds for an investigation be expanded after the investigation has already been commenced – for example\, if an investigation reveals issues of systemic discrimination?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process? How should investigatory meetings be approached where the person being interviewed has or is suspected to have a disability?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators demand to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nHow should employers and unions approach investigations into workplace conduct which may have a criminal element?\nWhat legal avenues are available to employees who wish to challenge what they believe to be an unfair or improper investigation into their human rights allegations?\n\nConcurrent 2 - Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\n\n\n \nDan Bokenfohr\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nGordon Nekolaichuk\nVice-Chair\nAlberta Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nKaren Thibault\nUnion Representative\nDisputes and Arbitrations\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\nRights and responsibilities differ when 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 amounting to a formal warning or 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?\nDo employees have a 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\, how can those employees protect themselves against self-incrimination?\nWhat 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\, 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?\n\nConcurrent 3 - Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces\n\n\n \nJake Axelrod\nUnion Counsel\nNugent Law Office \n\n\n \nApril Kosten\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nSarah Taylor\nProject Manager\nSpectrum Advantage\nChief Executive Officer\nNext Level ASD Consulting \n\n\n \nTonie Minhas\nProject Manager\, Neuroinclusion Services\nAUTICON \n\n\nOn a societal level\, there is increasing recognition that neurodivergence is a strength\, not a deficit\, and building inclusive\, neurodivergent workplaces makes a positive impact. In this panel\, experts will examine how employers can effectively recruit\, retain\, and accommodate neurodivergent employees\, and how unions can support their neurodivergent membership. Specifically\, the panel will address the following: \n\nWhat does neurodivergence mean? What should workplace parties know about specific conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)\, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)\, and learning disabilities falling under the umbrella of neurodivergence? Do these conditions share any similarities? How might they affect an employee’s work performance?\nHow can businesses benefit from hiring neurodivergent employees?\nWhat measures can employers put in place to effectively recruit neurodivergent employees? How can employers support/accommodate neurodivergent applicants throughout the recruitment process?\nConsidering the emphasis on self-identification in the neurodiverse community\, must employees who identify as neurodivergent provide evidence of a medical diagnosis to access initiatives designed to recruit diverse employees? How should employers respond to these disclosures when they occur?\nHow do common stereotypes hinder the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees in the workplace? What can be done to guard against these stereotypes?\nWhat are the signs an employee may be struggling with work performance or workplace relationships because of a neurological difference such as ASD or ADHD? When does the employer have a duty to inquire as to whether the employee in question requires accommodation?\nWhat are some examples of appropriate and effective accommodations for neurodivergent employees?\nWhat accommodations should unions provide to neurodivergent members accessing union services and using union processes?\nWhat kind of medical information can employers request from employees seeking accommodation on the basis of neurodivergence? Can a detailed neuropsychological evaluation report be required? How often\, if ever\, should updated medical information be requested from a neurodivergent employee\, who\, by definition\, has a lifelong condition?\n\nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nThe Calgary Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\n\nEach Pre-Conference Workshop has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nEach Pre-Conference Workshop has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/calgary-labour-arbitration-and-policy-conference-2024/
LOCATION:The Westin Calgary\, 320 4 Avenue Southwest\, Calgary\, Alberta\, T2P 2S6\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/calgary-lac-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240604T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240604T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240118T171618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240515T163500Z
UID:11980-1717504200-1717509600@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Charting Vital Signs: Examining current caselaw and legislation in the healthcare sector
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nDanna Morrison\nArbitrator/Mediator\nDanna Morrison Mediation & Arbitration Inc. \nVice-Chair\nOntario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nSebastien Anderson\nUnion Counsel\nLabour Rights Law \n\n\n \nMeg Atkinson\nUnion Counsel\nKastner Ko LLP \n\n\n \nErin Cutler\nSenior Legal Director and General Counsel\nHealth Employers Association of BC (HEABC) \n\n\n \nStephanie Ramsay\nEmployer Counsel\nMatthews Dinsdale \n\n\nIn this webinar\, panelists will examine recent cases and legislative updates impacting employees in the healthcare sector. Topics to be addressed in the session and materials include: \n\nRecent decisions regarding the enforceability of wage restraint legislation;\nNoteworthy interest arbitration decisions addressing factors such as inflation and staffing and recruitment;\nRecently negotiated collective agreements in the healthcare sector and emerging trends in collective agreement clauses;\nTrends in healthcare privatization and recent legislation introduced in several provinces restructuring the organization and delivery of healthcare services;\nRecent Labour Board decisions addressing illegal strike activity\, statutory freeze violations\, and contracting out and the use of agency workers;\nNoteworthy grievance arbitration decisions addressing key workplace issues such as discrimination and discipline; and\nLegislative and other government initiatives aimed at addressing staff shortages\, recruitment and retention\, and burnout in the healthcare sector.\nWhat do arbitrators in the healthcare sector have to say about:\n\nStaffing shortages;\nUse of agency workers;\nRecruitment and retention;\nInflation;\nContracting out;\nMandatory vaccination;\nBurnout;\nAbuse of residence; and\nAssaults on staff.\n\n\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks prior to the webinar\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most significant developments. \nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/charting-vital-signs-examining-current-caselaw-and-legislation-in-the-healthcare-sector/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/charting-vital-signs-headerr.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240523T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240523T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240118T170925Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240522T161250Z
UID:11978-1716467400-1716472800@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Language Matters: Expert guidance on crafting inclusive collective agreement clauses
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nHeather Ann McConnell\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nMike Hamata\nEmployer Counsel\nRoper Greyell \n\n\n \nAlison McEwen\nUnion Counsel\nRavenlaw \n\n\n \nParm Sandhar\nBargaining Representative\nHospital Employees’ Union (HEU) \n\n\n \nSundeep Gokhale\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz \n\n\nIn this webinar\, expert panelists will provide practical guidance on drafting and negotiating collective agreement language that promotes workplace diversity\, equity\, and inclusion. Panelists will address questions including: \n\nHow can workplace parties apply anti-racism and intersectional approaches when reviewing collective agreement language and negotiating new clauses?\nWhat changes should workplace parties consider making to commonly-used terminology in their collective agreements to ensure that contract language is inclusive and non-discriminatory?\nShould parties consider updating their collective agreement language in light of federal Employment Equity Act amendments?\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent arbitration decisions in which collective agreement language was found to be discriminatory?\nWhat are some examples of collective agreement clauses that have recently been negotiated to promote equity\, diversity\, and inclusion and remove barriers for employees?\nHow can parties ensure that collective agreement language – aimed at promoting equity\, diversity\, and inclusion – does not conflict with other collective agreement rights (e.g. seniority rights)?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/language-matters-expert-guidance-on-crafting-inclusive-collective-agreement-clauses/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/language-matters-header-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240514T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240515T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240314T193136Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240515T165328Z
UID:12779-1715689800-1715788800@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ensuring Effective Workplace Investigations: Intensive Skills Training for Employers and Unions (Virtual Event)
DESCRIPTION:Each day goes from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.\nProgram Leader\n\n \nJennifer Wootton\nLawyer & Workplace Investigator \n\n\nWorkplace harassment investigations require processes that are fair and effective. Procedural errors can be costly\, resulting in irreparable harm to employees and reputational harm to employers. This session will equip human resources professionals\, managers\, and union representatives with the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure that investigations in their workplaces are thorough\, balanced\, and responsive to legal requirements. \nParticipants will learn to: \n\nEvaluate harassment complaints\nChoose appropriate\, impartial investigators\nDetermine the appropriate mandate and scope of the investigation\nMake sure investigations comply with applicable law and are procedurally fair\nAppreciate how investigators should assess credibility and evidence\nAddress issues of confidentiality and privilege\nReview investigation reports critically\n\nPlease contact customerservice@lancasterhouse.com for more details. \nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 6.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 7 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved for 6 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 7 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 7 substantive hours;\n0 professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 7 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ensuring-effective-workplace-investigations-intensive-skills-training-for-employers-and-unions/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Skills Training
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/eewi.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240509T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240509T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20240118T170015Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240503T144543Z
UID:11976-1715257800-1715263200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Untangling the Web: Sorting out administration and accommodation issues in sick leave\, LTD\, STD and workers’ compensation claims
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nMadeleine Loewenberg\nLawyer\, Workplace Investigator\, and Mediator \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nDr. Dwayne Van Eerd\nScientist\nInstitute of Work & Health \n\n\n \nBrad N. Cocke\nLawyer\nCooperwilliams Truman & Ito LLP \n\n\n \nNiiti Simmonds\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo \n\n\nIncome protection for employees who are unable to work due to illness or disability is a crucial issue in collective bargaining. Unions seek to safeguard employees’ income security from unexpected interruptions caused by sickness\, while employers are concerned to enhance the efficiency and contain the costs of such income replacement programs. Difficult questions of contract interpretation arise about eligibility and entitlement\, particularly where a third-party insurer or administrative service provider is involved. In this webinar\, a panel of experts will provide guidance on a number of key issues\, taking into consideration recent decisions of arbitrators and the courts. \n\nWhat is the relationship between negotiated entitlements under a collective agreement and statutory entitlements under employment standards legislation\, e.g. paid sick leave or emergency leave days? Can employees’ sick leave entitlements under a collective agreement be offset against comparable entitlements under legislation?\nWhen an employee is on an extended medical leave of absence\, such as workers’ compensation or long-term disability\, is the employer permitted to pro-rate benefits under collective agreements that are based on service\, i.e. vacation or holiday pay? Does the pro-rating of benefits in such circumstances constitute prohibited discrimination?\nIn what circumstances will the employer be obligated to pay negotiated sickness or disability benefits where a third-party insurance company or administrative services provider has denied the claim?\nTo what extent can employees be required to provide personal medical information when applying\, for sick leave\, short-term\, or long-term disability benefits? When is a request for additional\, more detailed information justified? What medical information can properly be required in support of a request for a workplace accommodation?\nWhen will eligibility requirements\, e.g. qualifying days\, for sickness or disability benefits be held to discriminate on the basis of disability or other prohibited grounds?\nCan an employee who is found to be “totally disabled” from performing work in any occupation\, in accordance with an insured plan\, be dismissed for non-culpable absenteeism? When will a subsisting entitlement to benefits preclude dismissal for non-culpable absenteeism?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/untangling-the-web-sorting-out-administration-and-accommodation-issues-in-sick-leave-ltd-std-and-workers-compensation-claims/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/untangling-the-web-header-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240506
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240509
DTSTAMP:20260403T235432
CREATED:20231109T142244Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T181944Z
UID:11158-1714953600-1715212799@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Atlantic Labour Law Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Atlantic Labour Law ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nChris Peddigrew\nArbitrator / Mediator / Investigator\nPeddigrew Wade Law \n\n\n \nLeah Kutcher\nIn-House Counsel\nNova Scotia Teachers Union \n\n\n \nJames LeMesurier\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nErin Delaney\nSolicitor\nGovernment of Newfoundland & Labrador \n\n\n \nJill Houlihan\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nRyan McCarville\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nPaula Trites\nLabour Relations Officer\nNew Brunswick Union of Public Employees (NBU) \n\n\nMonday\, May 6\, 2024*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nWorkshopDifficult Accommodations: Responding to denial\, defensiveness\, and personality disorders\n\n\n \nMichael MacDonald\nManager\, Health Services\nJazz Aviation \n\n\n \nBrad Proctor\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nWayne Thistle\nArbitrator/Mediator\nInnovative Dispute Resolution Inc. \n\n\nAccommodating employees with disabilities that impair their judgment\, perception\, and often their very ability to participate in the accommodation process itself can be challenging. Working through interactive exercises with the guidance of experts\, participants will develop the knowledge and skills to: \n\nComply with management and union responsibilities surrounding the accommodation process\, the duty to inquire\, obtaining medical records\, and related privacy legislation;\nUnderstand how common disabilities and related stigma may impede a worker’s ability to participate in the accommodation process;\nApply effective communication skills when interacting with defensive or resistant employees;\nComply with legal obligations when workers are unwilling or unable to participate in the accommodation process; and\nIdentify when the threshold of undue hardship has been reached.\n\nSchedule\nBreakfast and registration: 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. \nIntroductory remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nWorkshop: 9:05 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. \nBreak: 10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. \nWorkshop: 10:45 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. \nLunch: 11:55 a.m. – 1:05 p.m. \nWorkshop: 1:05 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nBreak: 2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. \nWorkshop and closing remarks: 2:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nTuesday\, May 7\, 20248:00 – 9:00: Registration and breakfast\n9:00 – 9:05: Opening Remarks \n9:05 – 10:35: Panel 1 - Atlantic Update: Experts examine key cases and legislative developments\n\n\n \nNancy F. Barteaux\, K.C.\nEmployer Counsel\nFounder and Principal\nBarteaux Labour and Employment Lawyers Inc. \n\n\n \nJames Farrell\nSolicitor and Staff Representative\nFFAW-Unifor \n\n\n \nBrittany Keating\nPartner\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nJohn Whelan\nArbitrator\nWhelan Dispute Resolution \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will analyze noteworthy legal developments\, discussing key cases and recent legislation. Topics to be addressed include: \n\nPrivacy;\nDiscipline;\nHealth and safety/workers’ compensation; and\n\nPanelists will also discuss recent provincial and federal legislative amendments\, including: \n\nPay equity;\nPay transparency;\nPensions;\nStrike replacements;\nSick time/sick notes;\nMinimum wages; and\nSupply chain transparency.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \n10:35 – 10:50: Break \n10:50 – 12:05: Panel 2 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and employer concerns\n\n\n \nIsabelle Keeler\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\n \nLynne Poirier\nArbitrator/Mediator \nVice-Chair\nCanada Industrial Relations Board \n\n\n \nDaniel Wilband\nCounsel\nLawson Creamer \n\n\nA tension sometimes arises between employee free speech and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. How can these arguably competing rights and obligations be balanced? In this session\, a panel of experts will address these questions: \n\nWhat is the line between safeguarding employee free speech and ensuring a respectful and safe work environment? Do employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nCan employers discipline employees for private statements and/or expressions made outside the workplace?\nTo what extent will arbitrators consider Charter rights and values such as freedom of expression in the context of off-duty conduct?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for their potentially polarizing beliefs? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\n\n12:05 – 1:25: Networking Lunch \n1:25 – 2:10: Keynote - The Burnout Burger: The role of psychological safety in preventing burnout in the workplace\n\n\n \nDr. Dayna Lee-Baggley\nFounder & CEO\, Dr. Lee-Baggley and Associates \nAssistant Professor\, Faculty of Medicine\, Dalhousie University\nAdjunct Professor\, Psychology Department\, Saint Mary’s University \n\n\nRates of burnout have never been higher; however\, the conventional focus on self-care falls short. In this innovative presentation\, Dr. Dayna will present a more comprehensive strategy to address burnout known as the “Burnout Burger.” The Burnout Burger highlights that burnout is not just the responsibility of the individual. Instead\, the individual is squeezed between organizational and cultural factors that also influence burnout. Dr. Dayna will present the science of burnout and actionable strategies to address the Burnout Burger\, including the role of psychological safety in targeting burnout. Attendees will gain insight into cutting-edge\, evidence-based tips and techniques\, empowering individuals\, leaders\, and workplaces to effectively address burnout and foster the well-being of both employees and organizations. \n2:10 – 2:25: Break \n2:25 – 3:40: Panel 3 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios\n\n\n \nFrank Demont\, K.C.\nArbitrator\nResolve Arbitration & Mediation Services \n\n\n \nChristina Kennedy\nSenior Labour Relations Counsel\nAir Line Pilots Association\, International \n\n\n \nMichelle A. Willette\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\nIn many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet the definition of harassment. However\, in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser knew or ought reasonably to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome\, offensive\, or harmful. In this session\, panelists will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether certain comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address questions such as: \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role do a complainant’s personal characteristics – gender and race\, for example – play in determining whether certain conduct should be reasonably seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be insulting or humiliating?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct ought reasonably to have been known to be offensive?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationships between complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nFrom the employer’s perspective\, how is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\n3:40 – 3:45: Closing remarks \nWednesday\, May 8\, 20248:00 – 9:00: Registration and breakfast\n9:00 – 9:05: Opening Remarks \n9:05 – 10:20: Panel 4 - Facing the Public: Protecting workers from harassment and ensuring a safe workplace\n\n\n \nKiersten Amos\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nChantelle MacDonald Newhook\nArbitrator/Mediator/Investigator\nDispute Winners \nVice-Chair\nNewfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nKyle Rees\nUnion Counsel\nO’Dea Earle \n\n\nMany forward-facing employees may experience violence and/or harassment from third parties such as clients\, students\, patients\, customers\, etc. In this session\, experts will explore the scope of an employer’s legal duty to prevent third party violence against their employees\, the rights and duties of employees in these circumstances\, and the union’s role in preventing and responding to violence experienced by their membership. Questions to be addressed include: \n\nWhat legal obligations do employers have to protect their employees from third-party harassment? Should workplace violence and harassment policies include specific provisions for dealing with third parties who become violent towards employees?\nWhat steps must an employer take when they become aware that their staff are being harassed by a third party?\nDoes the legal obligation to protect the health and safety of employees extend to violence and harassment that occurs off-site? How do these obligations apply in the context of remote work?\nWhat obligations do unions have to support members who are facing violence and/or harassment from third parties/the public? In what circumstances should unions grieve an employer’s failure to protect employees from third party violence and/or pursue remedies through the Ministry of Labour/Labour Relations Board?\nWhat is the scope of an employee’s duty to report concerns about a patient\, student\, customer\, or client?\nWhat legal recourse is available to employees who have experienced violence or harassment from members of the public? In what circumstances may an employer be liable for discrimination and harassment perpetrated by non-employees or members of the public? What factors will an arbitrator consider when making this determination?\nIn what circumstances can employees refuse work on the basis that they believe they will experience violence from members of the public? Are there circumstances where workers who are excluded from the general right to refuse unsafe work under occupational health and safety legislation (i.e. police officers\, firefighters\, correctional officers\, and health care workers)\, can refuse unsafe work on the basis that a patient/client/ etc. poses a danger?\nWhat are the implications of Bill C-3\, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code\, which outlines enhanced protections for health care workers under the Criminal Code?\n\n10:20 – 10:35: Break \n10:35 – 11:50: Panel 5 - Working towards inclusion: Removing barriers to recruitment\, retention\, and promotion\n\n\n \nDavid Delaney\nEmployee Relations Consultant and Employment Equity Coordinator\nHalifax Employers Association \n\n\n \nMichael Gillingham\nUnion Counsel\nMartin Whalen Hennebury Stamp \n\n\n \nCarey Majid\nExecutive Director\nNewfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission \n\n\nAs concepts of workplace equality\, diversity\, and inclusion continue to evolve\, many organizations are turning to new initiatives to address systemic discrimination in workplaces. In this session\, experts will discuss: \n\nHow can systemic discrimination manifest in the workplace\, and how can it be identified?\nHow can employers and unions proactively address impacts of systemic discrimination in the workplace?\nHow can systemic barriers manifest during hiring processes? How can employers best implement fair hiring practices to avoid discrimination and promote a more diverse workforce?\nHow can systemic barriers manifest during promotion processes? How can employers and unions best address and combat these barriers?\nWhat policy changes can employers implement to prevent unintentional discriminatory consequences?\nIs collective agreement language effective in fostering equity and creating a respectful workplace culture?\nWhat steps are unions and workplaces taking to advocate for non-discriminatory workplace practices?\n\n11:50 – 1:00: Lunch \n1:00 – 2:15: Panel 6 - Investigating Investigations: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\n\n\n \nLisa Gallivan\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nAndrea MacNevin\nEmployer Counsel\nBarteaux Labour and Employment Lawyers Inc. \n\n\n \nRon Pizzo\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles and best practices in conducting fair\, adequate\, and effective investigations into human rights-related allegations. The panel will address questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process? What procedural flaws have been found to render an investigation unfair or inadequate?\nWhen is retaining a third-party investigator necessary? What other alternatives are possible?\nCan the grounds for an investigation be expanded after the investigation has already been commenced – for example\, if an investigation reveals issues of systemic discrimination?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process? How should investigatory meetings be approached where the person being interviewed has or is suspected to have a disability?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators demand to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nHow should employers and unions approach investigations into workplace conduct which may have a criminal element?\nWhat legal avenues are available to employees who wish to challenge what they believe to be an unfair or improper investigation into their human rights allegations?\n\n2:15 – 2:30: Break \n2:30 – 3:45: Panel 7 - Addressing the Unknown: Arbitrators respond to the use of artificial intelligence\n\n\n \nRobert Basque\nArbitrator\nForbes Roth Basque \n\n\n \nBrenda Comeau\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nNoella Martin\nEmployer Counsel\nBurchell Wickwire Bryson LLP \n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to select and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced union and management counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a union challenge to algorithmic management drawn from US caselaw and a challenge to a program designed to vet job candidates. Specific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators in the Atlantic provinces find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\n3:45 – 3:50: Closing remarks \nCPDConference CPD\n\nThis program has been approved for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\nThis program has been approved for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/atlantic-labour-law-conference/
LOCATION:Halifax Convention Centre\, 1650 Argyle Street\, Halifax\, Nova Scotia\, B3J 0E6\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/atlantic-ll-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240425T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240613T160000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235433
CREATED:20240220T165731Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240509T145540Z
UID:12368-1714048200-1718294400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Labour Relations Certificate - Spring (Virtual Program)
DESCRIPTION:In association with:Upon completion of this program\, participants will receive a certificate of completion and a digital credential. \nProgram Leader\nDaphne Taras\nProfessor and Director\nCentre for Labour-Management Relations\nToronto Metropolitan University \nProgram Faculty\n\n \nFarah Baloo\nSenior Legal Counsel\, Legal Department\nUnifor \n\n\n \nSharmila Clark\nDirector\, Employment Law Division\nCity of Toronto \n\n\n \nBruce Curran\nAssociate Professor\, Faculty of Law\nUniversity of Manitoba \n\n\n \nChris Davidson\nSenior Program Lawyer and Researcher \n\n\n \nShana French\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz LLP \n\n\n \nDaryn Jeffries\nEmployer Counsel\nRae Christen Jeffries LLP \n\n\n \nAvner Levin\nProfessor\nLincoln Alexander School of Law\nToronto Metropolitan University \n\n\n \nIan Mackenzie\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nFrank Miller\nDirector\, Executive and Corporate Education\nTed Rogers School of Management \n\n\n \nNathaniel Marshall\nEmployer Counsel and Workplace Investigator\nMarshall Workplace Law \n\n\n \nPeggy Nash\nSenior Advisor and Advisory Committee Chair\nCentre for Labour Management Relations\, Toronto Metropolitan University \n\n\n \nDionne Pohler\nAssociate Professor\nUniversity of Saskatchewan \n\n\n \nJim Stanford\nEconomist and Director\nCentre for Future Work \n\n\n \nBob Thompson\nProfessor\nHuman Resources\nSeneca College of Applied Arts and Technology \n\n\n \nNaheed Yaqubian\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Nurses’ Association \n\n\nProgram\nThe Labour Relations Certificate Program\, presented by Toronto Metropolitan University and Lancaster House\, is designed to provide individuals engaged in labour relations with the core skills and knowledge required to create and maintain productive union-management relationships that foster fair and efficient workplaces. \nTaught by Canada’s leading labour relations scholars and practitioners\, this program combines theory\, leading research\, and professional experience to provide an education that has immediate application in participants’ workplaces. \nProgram features \n\nAccess to leading Canadian experts in a small-group setting\nActive learning through group discussion\, case studies\, and simulations\nBalanced coverage of labour and management points of view\nManagement\, union\, and neutral attendees learn together\nExposure to diverse opinions and extensive knowledge of fellow participants\nVariety of speakers (academics\, lawyers\, practitioners\, subject-matter experts)\n\nWho should attend? \n\nHuman resources professionals\nUnion officers and representatives\nLawyers\nManagers\nMediators\nWorkplace investigators\n\n2024 Spring Schedule†\nThe Spring 2024 session of the Labour Relations Certificate Program will comprise of 8 sessions over 8 Weeks and will take place on Thursdays from 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. E.T. beginning April 25\, 2024. \n\nSample Agenda\nCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours\, per session.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours\, per session.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resources Professionals Association.\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 3.5 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours\, per session.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/labour-relations-certificate-spring-2024/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Professional Learning Program
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/TMU-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240425T123000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240425T140000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235433
CREATED:20240118T164254Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240320T160652Z
UID:11974-1714048200-1714053600@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Lancaster’s Workplace Essentials: Understanding the scope and limits of management rights
DESCRIPTION:Moderator\n\n \nSara Slinn\nArbitrator and Mediator\nSara Slinn Mediation/Arbitration \nAssociate Professor\nOsgoode Hall Law School\nYork University \n\n\nSpeakers\n\n \nAllie Laurent\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross \n\n\n \nCaitlin Meggs\nUnion Counsel\nVictory Square Law Office \n\n\nWhenever management makes a workplace decision that is not specifically addressed by the collective agreement\, the question arises whether this action is a valid exercise of management rights. In this installment of Lancaster’s Workplace Essentials webinar series\, expert panelists will examine recent case law and key principles relating to management rights. Topics to be address include: \n\nIn the absence of collective agreement language\, is an employer in a unionized workplace required to exercise its right to manage in a fashion that is reasonable and fair\, and to act honestly and in good faith?\nHow has the duty of good faith and honest performance been applied?\nWhere the collective agreement confers discretion on an employer\, must the employer use this discretion reasonably? What test must employers meet when they introduce a unilateral rule or workplace policy?\nIn what circumstances will an arbitrator find that employers have exercised their discretionary management rights properly? Improperly? What kinds of remedies may an arbitrator order in these circumstances?\nHow have the foregoing principles been applied in recent caselaw dealing with drug and alcohol testing\, attendance management\, and electronic monitoring?\n\nAccreditationCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 1.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 1.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 1.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/lancasters-workplace-essentials-understanding-the-scope-and-limits-of-management-rights/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/management-rights-header-3.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240418T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240418T163000
DTSTAMP:20260403T235433
CREATED:20240201T211006Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240305T153835Z
UID:12150-1713429000-1713457800@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Intensive Mediation Workshop
DESCRIPTION:In association with:Upon completion of this program\, participants will receive a digital credential from Toronto Metropolitan University. \n\n\n \nDaphne Taras\nProfessor and DirectorCentre for Labour-Management RelationsToronto Metropolitan University \n\n\nProgram Leader\n\n \nDaphne Taras\nProfessor and Director\nCentre for Labour-Management Relations\nToronto Metropolitan University \n\n\nProgram Faculty\n\n \nPaula Knopf\nArbitrator \n\n\nThis intensive professional learning program is designed to develop the advanced dispute resolution skills that labour relations professionals need in order to be successful in their roles. \nParticipants will have the opportunity to observe dispute resolution techniques used by experienced professional mediators — and to use those techniques as they attempt to resolve a workplace dispute. To make the simulation as realistic as possible\, actors will play the role of the aggrieved party. \nAimed at labour relations professionals with basic to intermediate knowledge of mediation and workplace dispute resolution techniques\, this session aims not to create professional mediators but to equip participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to: \n\nDefuse tensions and manage workplace conflict\nResolve grievances without resorting to lengthy and expensive arbitration processes\nMake effective use of informal and formal mediation as a management or union representative\n\nWho is this program designed for? \n\nGraduates of the Lancaster House–Toronto Metropolitan University Labour Relations Certificate Program\nLabour relations professionals with 3 or more years of experience working full-time for an employer or a union\, including:\n\nHuman resources professionals\nLabour relations officers\nLocal union leadership\nManagers\nUnion staff\n\n\nLabour and employment lawyers in their first 5 years of practice\n\nTo ensure interactivity as well as opportunities for skill-building and personalized feedback\, spaces in this program are extremely limited. We hope you’ll join us. \nCPD\n\nThis program has been approved for 6.5 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 6.5 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/intensive-mediation-workshop-2024/
LOCATION:TRSM Building\, 55 Dundas Street W\, Toronto\, ON\, M5G 2C3\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Professional Learning Program
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/TMU-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240418
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240420
DTSTAMP:20260403T235433
CREATED:20231109T142359Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T174556Z
UID:11264-1713398400-1713571199@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Toronto Human Rights and Accommodation Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Toronto Human Rights and Accommodation ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nSarah Atkinson\nLabour Arbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nBonny Mak\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nKristen Allen\nUnion Counsel\nUrsel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP \n\n\nInterested to attend\, but need a little more time to confirm?\n RSVP today for best pricing and supportConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nRaj Dhir\nExecutive Director\nIndigenous Justice Policy (Indigenous Justice Division)\nMinistry of the\nAttorney General \n\n\n \nShana French\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz LLP \n\n\n \nJenny Neiman\nSenior Manager\, Human Rights Office\nCity of Toronto \n\n\n \nGregory Ko\nUnion Counsel\nKastner Ko LLP \n\n\n \nSeema Lamba\nHuman Rights\nPrograms Officer\nPublic Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) \n\n\nThursday\, April 18\, 2024Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 am – 9:00 am ET \nOpening Remarks: 9:00 am – 9:05 am ET \nPanel 1 - Human Rights Highlights: The latest caselaw and legislative developments - 9:05 am – 10:35 am ET\n\n\n \nMeg Atkinson\nUnion Counsel\nKastner Ko LLP \n\n\n \nKim Bernhardt\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nMatthew Horner\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nNeena Gupta\nEmployer Counsel\nGowling WLG \n\n\n \nWade Poziomka\nUnion Counsel\nRoss & McBride LLP \n\n\n \nHossein Moghtaderi\nEmployer Counsel\nFilion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will examine recent noteworthy cases and legislative developments. Speakers will discuss the latest cases addressing: medical information disputes\, caste-based discrimination\, workplaces poisoned by harassment and discrimination\, biometric monitoring\, citizenship-based discrimination\, and Anti-SLAPP cases (motions to dismiss defamation lawsuits that are designed to suppress free speech. \nThis panel will also address Ontario and federal legislative initiatives\, including: \n\nOntario’s Working for Workers Four Act\, 2024 (Bill 149);\nFederal legislation targeting forced labour and child labour (Bill S-211);\nProposed prohibition of strike replacement workers (Bill C-58); and\nAmendments to federal Employment Equity Act (Bill C-64) expanding reporting requirements.\nProposed changes to the Employment Standards Act\,\n\nBreak: 10:35 am – 10:50 am ET \nPanel 2 - Investigating Investigations: Examining current practices and recent caselaw - 10:50 am – 12:05 pm ET\n\n\n \nSharon Naipaul\nMediator/Investigator\nStrategic Workplace Equity and Conflict Resolution Solutions \n\n\n \nOzlem Yucel\nEmployer Counsel\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nAndrea Wobick\nUnion Counsel\nUrsel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles and best practices in conducting fair\, adequate\, and effective investigations into human rights-related allegations. \nThe panel will address questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process? What procedural flaws have been found to render an investigation unfair or inadequate?\nIs a formal investigation always required when an employee raises human rights-related concerns? When might other options\, such as alternative dispute resolution\, be permissible or preferable?\nWhen is retaining a third-party investigator necessary? What other alternatives are possible?\nCan the grounds for an investigation be expanded after the investigation has already commenced – for example\, if an investigation reveals issues of systemic discrimination?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators ask to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones\, which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nWhat legal avenues are available to employees who wish to challenge what they believe to be an unfair or improper investigation into their human rights allegations? Can an investigator be held personally liable for conducting an inadequate investigation?\nHow should employers and unions respond when an investigation reveals bad faith allegations by an employee? What role does the union have in restoring a safe and healthy workplace for all parties following an investigation?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 12:05 pm – 1:05 pm ET \nPanel 3 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and employer concerns - 1:05 pm – 2:20 pm ET\n\n\n \nAngela Bradley\nLawyer\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nLorenzo Lisi\nEmployer Counsel\nAird & Berlis LLP \n\n\n \nPatricia D’Heureux\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo LLP \n\n\nTensions may arise between employee free speech and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. How can these arguably competing rights and obligations be balanced? \nIn this session\, a panel of experts will address: \n\nWhat is the line between safeguarding employee free speech and ensuring a respectful and safe work environment? Do employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nCan employers discipline employees for private statements and/or expressions made outside the workplace?\nTo what extent will arbitrators consider Charter rights and values such as freedom of expression in the context of off-duty conduct?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for their potentially polarizing beliefs? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\n\nBreak: 2:20 pm – 2:35 pm ET \nPanel 4 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios - 2:35 pm – 3:50 pm ET\n\n\n \nBay Ryley\nPresident\nRyley Learning \nLawyer\nEmployment & Human Rights\nRyley Law \n\n\n \nMelissa Roth\nEmployer Counsel\nGowling WLG \n\n\n \nAleisha Stevens\nUnion Counsel\nCaleyWray \n\n\nIn Ontario\, workplace harassment is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” In many instances impugned conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition\, but in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser ought reasonably to have known that certain comments or conduct would be unwelcome. \nThis session will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether certain comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address questions such as: \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role do a complainant’s personal characteristics – gender and race\, for example – play in determining whether certain conduct should be reasonably seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be insulting or humiliating?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct ought reasonably to have been known to be offensive?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationships between complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\nClosing Remarks: 3:50 pm – 4:00 pm ET \nFriday\, April 19\, 2024Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 am – 9:00 am ET \nOpening Remarks: 9:00 am – 9:05 am ET \nPanel 5 - Putting Neurodiversity to Work: Effective strategies for recruitment\, accommodation\, and retention - 9:05 am – 10:20 am ET\n\n\n \nSandy Donaldson\nLabour Relations Officer\nOntario Nurses’ Association (ONA) \n\n\n \nSimon Margolis\nKnowledge Management Lawyer\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nSara Parchello\nEmployer Counsel\nBennett Jones LLP \n\n\nThere is increasing recognition that neurodivergence is a strength\, not a deficit\, and building inclusive\, neurodivergent workplaces makes a positive impact. In this panel\, experts will examine how employers can effectively recruit\, retain\, and accommodate neurodivergent employees\, and how unions can support their neurodivergent membership. \nSpecifically\, the panel will address: \n\nHow can businesses benefit from hiring neurodivergent employees?\nWhat measures can employers put in place to effectively recruit neurodivergent employees? How can employers support/accommodate neurodivergent applicants throughout the recruitment process?\nConsidering the emphasis on self-identification in the neurodiverse community\, must employees who identify as neurodivergent provide evidence of a medical diagnosis to access initiatives designed to recruit diverse employees? How should employers respond to these disclosures when they occur?\nHow do common stereotypes hinder the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees in the workplace? What can be done to guard against these stereotypes?\nWhat should workplace parties know about specific conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)\, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)\, and learning disabilities falling under the umbrella of neurodivergence? Do these conditions share any similarities? How might they affect an employee’s work performance?\nWhat are the signs an employee may be struggling with work performance or workplace relationships because of a neurological difference such as ASD or ADHD? When does the employer have a duty to inquire as to whether the employee in question requires accommodation?\nWhat are some examples of appropriate and effective accommodations for neurodivergent employees?\nWhat kind of medical information can employers request from employees seeking accommodation on the basis of neurodivergence? Can a detailed neuropsychological evaluation report be required? How often\, if ever\, can updated medical information be requested from a neurodivergent employee\, who\, by definition\, has a lifelong condition?\nWhat accommodations should unions provide to neurodivergent members accessing union services and using union processes?\n\nBreak: 10:20 am – 10:35 am ET \nPanel 6 - Truly Transformative? Recent federal and Ontario initiatives in employment equity - 10:35 am – 11:50 am ET\n\n\n \nPatricia DeGuire\nChief Commissioner\nOntario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) \n\n\n \nPriya Sarin\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz LLP \n\n\n \nAditya Rao\nSenior Officer\, Human Rights\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will address the recent report of the federal Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related change to the Act\, exploring broader lessons learned for workplace parties in all sectors and drawing connections to recent provincial initiatives aimed at promoting workplace equity. \nQuestions to be addressed include: \n\nWhat changes did the Task Force recommend with respect to how employment equity groups are defined and described under the Employment Equity Act?\nWhat is “intersectionality” and why is it important to adopt an intersectional approach to workplace policies? What recommendations did the Task Force make in this regard?\nHow can employers shift from a “top-down” approach to employment equity to a consultative process which involves unions and employees? What lessons can be learned from the Task Force’s recommendations regarding workplace employment equity committees?\nWhat problems did the Task Force identify with the concepts of “merit” or “fit” in recruiting and promoting employees?\nHow can workplace parties ensure that the collection of employee data for equity-related initiatives is meaningful and appropriate? What common pitfalls have led to what the Task Force deems “superficial data collection”? How can employers and unions measure and evaluate progress toward workplace equity?\nWhat recommendations did the Task Force make with respect to the use of non-disclosure agreements? Are there currently any restrictions regarding the use of these agreements in Ontario?\nHow is the Ontario Working for Workers Four Act\, 2023\, if passed\, expected to address issues of discrimination in recruitment and promotion as identified by the Task Force? How does the legislation compare to\, for example\, B.C.’s recently-passed Pay Transparency Act?\nWhat key updates should employers make to workplace harassment and discrimination policies taking into account the recommendations of the Task Force? Should employers updating their policies make any changes in light of the recent Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy position on caste-based discrimination?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 11:50 am – 12:50 pm ET \nKeynote - Building inclusive workplaces: Promising practices and future possibilities - 12:50 pm – 1:20 pm ET\n\n\n \nDr. Rebecca Gewurtz\nAssociate Professor\nSchool of Rehabilitation Science\nMcMaster University \nAdjunct Scientist\nInstitute for Work and Health (IWH) \nDirector\nInclusive Design for Employment Access (IDEA) Social Innovation Laboratory \n\n\nThe Inclusive Design for Employment Access (IDEA) is a social innovation laboratory that is focused on strengthening the capacity of Canadian employers to fully include persons with disabilities within Canadian workplaces. In this talk\, I will outline some of the promising practices that are emerging from our work with employers and other stakeholders to improve organizational capacity to hire\, support\, and promote persons with disabilities in diverse roles across different sectors. I will share what we currently know\, what we are working on\, and ways that different stakeholders\, including service providers\, government decision-makers\, labour representatives\, disability organizations\, and employers can work on together to build more inclusive Canadian workplaces. I will share what we mean by inclusive hiring\, onboarding\, mentorship and advancement practices\, and where employers often run into challenges despite good intentions. I will conclude by sharing some emerging developments to watch for as we continue our partner-based work within IDEA. \nPanel 7 - AI and Human Rights: Exploring the promise and peril of artificial intelligence in the workplace - 1:20 pm – 2:30 pm ET\n\n\n \nJames Craig\nUnion Counsel\nMorrison Watts Hurtado & Buchner \n\n\n \nRyan Fritsch\nCounsel\nLaw Commission of Ontario \n\n\n \nAmanda Hunter\nEmployer Counsel\nHunter Liberatore Law LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will provide guidance on the continuing evolution of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and the legal landscape surrounding it\, the use of AI by employers\, and the workplace human rights implications paired with it. Panelists will address questions including: \n\nWhat laws regulate AI in Canada? What rules are in place to protect individuals from discriminatory effects resulting from the use of AI?\nWhat are employers most commonly using AI for? How can the use of AI negatively or positively impact workplace human rights?\nAre there legal limits on an employer’s ability to use AI in the workplace? Can an employer’s right to use AI be limited through collective agreement language?\nWill human resources be taken over by “algorithmic management\,” defined as delegating to algorithms certain managerial tasks such as filtering through applications for employment\, assessing employee performance\, or even making decisions regarding termination of employment?\nHow have arbitrators and adjudicators treated the use of AI in the workplace in light of anti-discrimination and duty to accommodate laws\, such as an employer’s use of biometric scanning or AI driven recruitment processes?\nAre employees entitled to information about how their employer is using AI and monitoring and surveillance technologies? How can collective bargaining provisions address these issues?\nWhat can employers do to mitigate risks of bias\, discrimination or otherwise preventing potential breaches of human rights laws when using AI?\n\nBreak: 2:30 pm – 2:45 pm ET \nPanel 8 - Ties That Bind: Accommodating family status and caregiving obligations - 2:45 pm – 3:55 pm ET\n\n\n \nShane Todd\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nReema Khawja\nSenior Counsel\nOntario Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nDoug Wray\nUnion Counsel\nCaleyWray \n\n\nIn this interactive session\, expert panelists will address the test for family status in Ontario and engage audience members in exercises illustrating practical applications of the test\, better equipping employers and unions to navigate accommodation requests. Speakers will address issues including: \n\nWhat forms of caregiving fall under the protective umbrella of family status accommodation?\nWhat constitutes a sufficiently serious interference with a family obligation such that it will amount to family status discrimination?\nHow can employers and unions distinguish preferences from obligations? For example\, when will a request to work from home to provide caregiving to elderly parents or young children amount to an obligation rather than a preference? What about requests such as leaving work early to enable an employee to pick up a child from school rather than have that child take the bus?\nAre employees required to demonstrate that they have made some effort to “self-accommodate” (e.g. explore a variety of childcare options) before an employer’s duty to accommodate is triggered?\nWhat qualifies as “undue hardship” for an employer when it comes to family status accommodation?\nWhat policies should employers and unions consider to meet family status accommodation requirements and reduce workplace barriers for employees with family obligations?\n\nClosing Remarks: 3:55 pm – 4:00 pm ET \nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 11 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 11 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n \nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 11 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/toronto-human-rights-and-accommodation-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Vantage Venues\, 150 King Street West\, Toronto\, Ontario\, M5H 1J9\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Human Rights & Accommodation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/toronto-HRA-2024-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240417
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240418
DTSTAMP:20260403T235433
CREATED:20231201T180316Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240416T143027Z
UID:11468-1713312000-1713398399@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Gender Equity Virtual Conference: Paving the way to inclusive workplaces
DESCRIPTION:This event takes place from 12:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ET \nGender Equity Virtual ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nJan Borowy\nPay Equity Administrator\nCanadian National Office\nUnited Steelworkers (USW) \n\n\n \nKristen Woo\nLegal Counsel\nBC Public School Employers’ Association \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nKristine Barr\nHuman Rights Representative\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)\, Manitoba Regional Office \n\n\n \nNathaniel Marshall\nEmployer Counsel/Workplace Investigator\nMarshall Workplace Law \n\n\n \nAngela E. Rae\nEmployer Counsel\nRae Christen Jeffries LLP \n\n\nWednesday\, April 17\, 2024Introductory remarks by co-chairs: 12:30 pm – 12:35 pm ET \nKeynote - 12:35 pm – 1:20 pm\n\n\n \nProf. Adelle Blackett\nChair\nEmployment Equity Act Review\nTask Force \nProfessor\nCanada Research Chair in Transnational Labour Law\nMcGill University \n\n\nBreak: 1:20 pm – 1:30 pm ET \nPanel 1 - In Pursuit of Equity: Experts examine key cases and legislative developments - 1:30 pm – 2:45 pmIn Pursuit of Equity: Experts examine key cases and legislative developments \n\n\n \nArchana Mathew\nMediator\, Arbitrator\nArchana Mathew – Mediation & Arbitration \n\n\n \nMelissa Mustafa\nEmployer Counsel\nLakhani Campea LLP \n\n\n \nKaren Segal\nUnion Counsel\nAllevato Quail & Roy \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will examine recent noteworthy cases and legislative developments relating to gender equity in the workplace. Speakers will discuss the latest cases addressing topics such as: \n\nKey trends in discipline and damages for sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex\, gender\, and family status;\nThe impact of stereotypes and unconscious bias and the role of intersectionality in evaluating and responding to allegations of discrimination and harassment;\n“Poisoned work environments”\, including the impact of “microaggressions” and other subtle forms of discrimination;\nOff-duty conduct\, including determining when conduct that is harassing or discriminatory will be considered sufficiently connected with the workplace to be actionable;\nKey principles and best practices in investigating discrimination and harassment claims;\nBest practices in respecting gender diversity at work;\nThe use of anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) proceedings to protect human rights-related speech; and\nPay equity update.\n\nThe panel will also address recent federal and provincial legislative initiatives\, including: \n\nThe federal Employment Equity Act Review Task Force Report and related changes to the Act;\nRecent federal regulations improving the availability of menstrual products in the workplace; and\nProposed and pending provincial legislative initiatives aimed at promoting pay transparency.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments.Break: 2:45 pm – 2:55 pm ET \nPanel 2 - Silenced or Settled? The implications of using non-disclosure agreements to settle harassment and other workplace disputes - 2:55 pm – 3:45 pm\nSilenced or Settled? The implications of using non-disclosure agreements to settle harassment and other workplace disputes \n\n\n \nJillian Humphreys\nLawyer and Workplace Investigator\nSouthern Butler Price LLP \n\n\n \nJennifer Khor\nSupervising Lawyer & Project Manager\nSexual Harassment Advice\, Response\, and Prevention for Workplaces\nSHARP Workplaces\nStand Informed legal advice services \n\n\n \nAsha Rampersad\nEmployer Counsel\, Workplace Investigator & Trainer\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nMatt Yun\nLegal & Legislative Representative\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nNon-disclosure agreements\, colloquially referred to as “NDAs”\, are legal contracts that ensure confidentiality between signatories. While NDAs are common practice in workplace settlements\, there is growing concern about the potential of NDAs to silence the victims of discrimination and harassment while shielding employers from reputational damage. The Canadian Bar Association has passed a resolution against the misuse of NDAs. In this session\, a panel of experts will address the following: \n\nHow are NDAs currently being used in workplace disputes?\nWhat are the legal components of NDAs? What information can be covered by an NDA?\nWhat are the negative ramifications of using NDAs in workplace disputes? What are the potential benefits? How do NDAs impact the victims of harassment and/or violence?\nWhat circumstances may render an NDA unenforceable?\nWhat happens if an employee or former employee violates an NDA? How have courts and/or arbitrators treated breaches of NDAs?\nWhat legislative/regulatory changes have been passed respecting the use of NDAs in workplace disputes? What changes are forthcoming?\n\nBreak: 3:45 pm – 3:50 pm ET \nPanel 3 - Building Belonging at Work: Achieving genuine inclusion of gender diversity - 3:50 pm – 4:55 pm\nBuilding Belonging at Work: Achieving genuine inclusion of gender diversity \n\n\n \nFae Johnstone\nExecutive DirectorWisdom2Action \n\n\n \nEarl Moloney\nLabour Relations OfficerHealth Sciences Association of BC \n\n\n \nKai Scott\nPresidentTransFocus Consulting \n\n\n \nLisa Stam\nEmployer CounselSpringLaw \n\n\n \nEvan Vipond\nLead ConsultantVipond Consulting \n\n\nGenuine inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals in the workplace is a critical component of providing a safe and healthy work environment. In this session\, expert panelists will explain the ways in which employers\, unions\, and employees can collaborate to create an inclusive workplace for all\, addressing the following: \n\nWhat is gender identity and gender expression? What does it mean to be transgender or gender-diverse?\nWhat are the benefits of diversity and inclusion in the workplace? What are the advantages of a diversity and inclusion team and how can an employer foster the team’s success?\nWhat are examples of common mistakes made by employers when attempting to achieve inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals?\nHow can an employer design\, implement and monitor genuine and effective inclusive policies for transgender and gender-diverse individuals? Who should have a role in developing and/or monitoring inclusive workplace policies?\nHow can employers and unions best incorporate inclusive hiring practices?\nWhat steps must an employer take when discrimination or harassment concerns arise relating to the mistreatment of a transgender or gender-diverse employee? Why are investigations so critical to the protection of transgender or gender-diverse employees? What role does the union and employee have in the complaint process\, investigation process\, and outcomes of the investigation?\nWhen may a transgender or gender-diverse employee require accommodation? When do employers have a duty to accommodate? What role do the employer\, the union and the employee play in the accommodation process? How can employers and unions support transitioning employees?\nIn creating an inclusive workplace\, what role do organizational competency and raising awareness play in the workplace regarding gender identity and gender expression?\n\nClosing remarks by co-chairs: 4:55 pm – 5:00 pm ET \nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 3.45 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 3.45 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/gender-equity-virtual-conference/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/gevc-header-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR