102

Denying El to women laid off after maternity leave is unconstitutional: appeal court (cheknews.ca)

submitted 4 days ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 36 points 4 days ago

FYI

EI = Employment Insurance

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

In the US it's typically called unemployment insurance

[-] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 1 points 3 days ago

I'm not familiar with either term, but I suspect that the equivalent in Australia is called Income Protection Insurance.

[-] rozodru@piefed.world 18 points 4 days ago

the amount of hoops someone who needs EI has to go through to get it in this country is mind boggling. It's easier to get the pennies you get from Ontario Works in Ontario than it is to get EI and you pay directly into EI. and BOTH will battle with you to get you off them.

it's shameful that this country will fight it's citizens tooth and nail to prevent assisting them in their time of need.

[-] skankhunt42@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

I had no problem getting EI for the 10 months I was unemployed. The company went "bankrupt". No notice, no severance, but the ~1200 every 2 weeks was helpful.

[-] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 9 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] festus@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[-] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 5 points 3 days ago

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).

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

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.