The SEA details minimum periods of rest between shifts for workers with no collective agreement. While the SEA does not contain a definition of ‘emergency circumstances’, it sets out that required periods of rest do NOT apply in ‘emergency circumstances’….so is this just a way to force workers to work longer/more hours and is this simply for the benefit of Employers?
We can see the difference – can you?
See section 2-13 of the SEA (which will replace The Labour Standards Act)
It says that a worker shall not be scheduled to work so that he/she does not have a period of 8 consecutive hours of rest in a given day. Then the second paragraph goes on to say that the required period of rest does not apply in ‘emergency circumstances’.
The current Labour Standards Act has a definition of ‘emergency circumstance’, see section 12 (4). However, the SEA does not clearly set this out so workers will not know when the employer can or cannot require them to work through the required period of rest. The definition should be put into the SEA and the language should be easy to understand for both the employer and the workers.
Take action now and let your MLA and the Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety know that there needs to be a clear, fair definition of ’emergency situation’ in this section of the SEA.
Purple Works Profile
In recognition of International Women’s Day on March 8, SEIU-West is participating in the Labour & United Way Partnership’s 4th Annual Tampon Tuesday collection drive. Many people face a monthly challenge due to lack of access to, or affordability of, feminine hygiene products. Sometimes it's often a choice between food and sanitary...Read more