Urge employees to vote, but just don’t tell them whom to vote for
Canadians face an important decision on Oct. 21. That means that employees should plan their days to get to their polling stations; and employers must meet their obligations to ensure that, as per the Canada Elections Act, employees are provided with “three consecutive hours off from work to vote.”
There is a common misconception that the “three-hour rule” means that employees must be permitted to “play hooky” for a half-day to fulfil their civic duty. That is not the case.
What the Canada Elections
Act requires (like the Ontario Election Act and other similar provincial legislation) is that employers ensure their employees have a window of at least three consecutive non-working hours in which to vote. In many cases, that requires no adjustments to an employee’s schedule whatsoever — for example, because the employee’s shift doesn’t start until at least three hours after polling stations open, or because his or her shift ends at least three hours before polling stations close.
It is only when the employee’s scheduled shift does not permit that three-hour window that he or she must be accommodated with a later start, an earlier finish or paid time off in the middle of the working day. An employer cannot make employees start earlier or work later on election day to accommodate the three hours as that would be a penalty under the legislation.
Employers who have not already confirmed arrangements for their workers who require shift adjustments should do so now. And they can encourage their people to vote. To be clear, there is nothing offside in an employer reminding — and even urging — employees to do so. Indeed, it is a mark of good corporate citizenship.
What employers must not do, however, is attempt to influence workers as to how they vote.
In the unionized context, the reasons flare obvious. Because unions are inherently political, and make no bones about conspicuously identifying their preferred contenders, for an employer to encourage support for anyone other than the union’s pet candidate would draw inevitable complaints and allegations of pressure, intimidation and anti-union animus.
Moreover, in both unionized and non-unionized settings, human rights legislation in several provinces expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of political opinion or belief. By implication, for an employer to express a political agenda would invite human rights complaints in those jurisdictions.
Apropos of the Thanksgiving weekend just past, I am mindful of the maxim that — to reduce the chance of indigestion — one ought to avoid debating religion and politics around the dining room table. The same holds true for the workplace.
What should be beyond debate, however, is the imperative for both employees and employers alike to support the democratic process, and to actively discourage voter apathy. The stakes are simply too high for Canadians not to make their voices heard on election day.
Financial Post
Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. The most recent of his six books is Law of Dismissal in Canada. hlevitt@levittllp.com Twitter.com/HowardLevittLaw