Human Resources Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

One of the problems is the lack of clear statistics on that. To be able to give you an accurate answer, I would have to have an exact idea of the employment policies of all federally regulated employers to determine what they provide—approximately—and under what conditions. We would also have to know the schedules of all employees in great detail. Unfortunately, we don't have such sophisticated statistics.

On the other hand, I can tell you that we have nevertheless identified certain groups of workers who are currently especially vulnerable when it comes to the eligibility requirements.

We know that 110,000 federally regulated employees are working part time. That accounts for about 14% of all federally regulated employees. In addition, there are more women than men—9% of men work part time, while that figure is 20% for women.

That being said, not all part-time workers are excluded. In certain cases, they benefit from an exception to the 15-day rule. If they have a regular and continuous schedule, they may be eligible. Nevertheless, a certain number of people have a flexible schedule and occasionally do not meet the 15-day standard. That's a fairly vulnerable group.

Another vulnerable group is made up of employees who aren't eligible for paid sick leave. So we could be talking about someone who does not earn wages for 15 days out of 30 because they are sick or have to miss work. That's unfortunate, but, currently, if someone is sick and does not earn wages for 15 days, they are not entitled to anything.

At this time, according to the latest data from 2008, three-quarters of federally regulated businesses do not give their employees paid sick leave, at least not systematically. That may be their choice. The fact remains that those employees are vulnerable if they have to miss work because of illness. There could be a problem with that, as a fairly large group of people is affected.

There are also women who go on maternity leave or men who go on parental leave. If someone takes one of those leaves, returns to work and has not earned 15 days of wages, they are excluded. Thousands of people end up in that situation. The same goes for people who were temporarily laid off. Someone who was laid off and had failed to earn 15 days of wages is excluded.

To come back to your original question, we cannot provide you with an exact figure. However, we can identify a number of groups that are currently vulnerable.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With the method of payment standardization you are introducing, most part-time employees do not receive paid sick leave or parental leave, but some of them are winners who will now be eligible for that leave.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Yes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

However, a standardized system will also make other people lose out.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Exactly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

How many workers will have their holiday leave reduced, and how much will that payment be reduced by?

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

My answer will be somewhat similar to the one I provided to the previous question. Our statistics are not accurate enough for us to be able to tell you that. We also cannot be sure whether or not employers will change their policies following the amendments. What's important is that employers tend to provide slightly more than what the code calls for. That statistic dates back to 2004, unless I am mistaken.

Approximately three-quarters of employees under federal jurisdiction are entitled to more than nine general holidays.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

They are often unionized, right?

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Yes, absolutely; many of them are unionized. That's exactly right.

However, there are more people who are entitled to those holidays than there are unionized people. Under those circumstances, will the employer necessarily make changes and reduce the payments? That's not clear.

Those who may lose out are probably people who work over 15 days out of 30, but who do not work more than 5 days a week. In such cases, those people may end up with 10% or 15% less pay for a specific general holiday. Once again, we don't have the total number.

It should be noted that people in that situation who may receive a bit less money for a specific general holiday could end up winning in the long term.

Currently, with the rule of 15 days out of 30, people will be entitled to certain general holidays, but maybe not to all of them. There are nine general holidays. Someone who was sick one day may have missed one of those holidays. If they were temporarily laid off, they may have missed another one. If their schedule was changed, they may have missed a third holiday because they worked less than 15 days. Ultimately, even if the percentage is lower per general holiday, a person will be eligible for nine general holidays and for pay for all of them.

I realize that this is not a clear answer to your question, and that's because we don't have all the figures. However, it's important to point out that we shouldn't only consider pay for a single general holiday. We have to look at the big picture. We think certain people will earn a bit less. There is no doubt about that. However, we believe that, overall, people will probably end up better off.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If my understanding is correct, people who may lose a bit are those who work part time, but almost full time.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Exactly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

Carry on.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Clause 197 deals—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Madame Boutin-Sweet has a question.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Pardon.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

In the new wording, it is stated in more than one place—for instance in paragraph 196(1)—that the calculation of the wage portion—one twentieth—will not take into account overtime pay. I have read the previous wording, but I did not see anything about that. Was that included in the old calculation formula?

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

That was actually included in the previous wording. Overtime pay did not count towards holiday pay. Currently, overtime is not included, but regular hours are. As previously mentioned, the systems are fairly complex. In addition, I must point out that the legislation is poorly drafted. So it's a bit difficult to make sense of it.

It should also be noted that this provision is based on the current Quebec provisions. The wording we use is very similar to that used in the Act respecting labour standards, which also doesn't provide for overtime pay.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

If I have understood correctly, with the old formula, overtime was not included. I have not seen that, but....

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Actually, that is the current formula, as the legislation has not been amended. According to the current formula, overtime will not be taken into account. As I said, the legislation is drafted in a strange way. In some cases, it says that the wages of a person paid on a weekly basis will not be reduced, but by definition, that excludes overtime. There are also regulatory provisions on the calculation that apply to people with flexible schedules. Once again, the process is fairly complex. However, the legislation specifically indicates that overtime does not count. It is excluded by definition.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

Now you may proceed to clause 197.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

To go back to clause 197, what we are bringing in here are some of the provisions that are currently in sections 197 and 198, so we will repeal section 198 and bring all of these together.

These provisions do not change other than some wording issues for clarification and also to make it gender neutral. It simply specifies the amount of pay that must be paid to employees who work on a general holiday. There are no changes compared to the current system. We're just bringing all of that together, and we're dealing both with employees in general and with employees working in continuous operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Carry on, unless you see an intervention.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Very good.

There is no significant change to proposed section 199. This simply specifies where a manager is a professional and working during a general holiday. Again, we've made the language a bit clearer and gender neutral, with no significant change.

For proposed section 200, it's the same thing. We're using “holiday pay” because that's the terminology we're now using, but there's no change. Holiday pay will still be deemed to be wages.

Proposed section 201 is a new section. This is actually something that qualifies the length of service requirement and will be of benefit to employees. We are making the general holiday provisions subject to section 189.

Section 189 specifies that if the business where the employee works is sold or otherwise transferred, the length of service of the employee with the previous employer and the new employer will be deemed to be continuous, so there's no break in service. The purpose of that, of course, is to make sure with regard to the 30-day requirement that if somebody has worked or been employed for 30 days with one employer and the business is sold, they don't have to again work 30 days with the new employer. It will be deemed they have already met the service requirement.