The fact that this had to be covered in court is absolutely insane, considering ending someone’s employment due to maternity leave isn’t legal in Canada.
The company that laid someone off right after their return should be fined and required to pay a generous severance, not to mention EI should definitely be applicable since not only did the employee not quit, they were let go through no fault of their own.
The article doesn’t say if the women were laid off because of maternity leave, only that they were laid off around that time. We don’t know if anything illegal happened - for all we know one of the employers may have closed an entire branch office or something.
Even if they did, the employer would be required by the law to give the returning parent an equivalent position. And in the case of a temporary shutdown/layoff, EI has to pay, and should never have required a court ordered decision.
The only real exception I could see is a complete, permanent shuttering of operations in the area, and even that shouldn’t deny the returning parent EI, especially in the case of a layoff and not an offering of a nonequivalent position (which would be allowed in that scenario).
I mean it makes sense not saying it is right but you need minimum hours to qualify for EI. So you go on it return to work get fired and don’t have the hours and your screwed.
I mean it kind of makes sense. They don’t have the hours built up to qualify for EI. Is it right I don’t know the company should be forced to pay a severance though.
The fact that this had to be covered in court is absolutely insane, considering ending someone’s employment due to maternity leave isn’t legal in Canada.
The company that laid someone off right after their return should be fined and required to pay a generous severance, not to mention EI should definitely be applicable since not only did the employee not quit, they were let go through no fault of their own.
The article doesn’t say if the women were laid off because of maternity leave, only that they were laid off around that time. We don’t know if anything illegal happened - for all we know one of the employers may have closed an entire branch office or something.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/forms-resources/igm/esa-part-6-section-54
Even if they did, the employer would be required by the law to give the returning parent an equivalent position. And in the case of a temporary shutdown/layoff, EI has to pay, and should never have required a court ordered decision.
The only real exception I could see is a complete, permanent shuttering of operations in the area, and even that shouldn’t deny the returning parent EI, especially in the case of a layoff and not an offering of a nonequivalent position (which would be allowed in that scenario).
I mean it makes sense not saying it is right but you need minimum hours to qualify for EI. So you go on it return to work get fired and don’t have the hours and your screwed.
I mean it kind of makes sense. They don’t have the hours built up to qualify for EI. Is it right I don’t know the company should be forced to pay a severance though.