Workers Gain Paid Leave and Protections

Full Title:
Helping Workers Get Ahead Act

Summary#

The Helping Workers Get Ahead Act would make broad changes to Nova Scotia’s labour, pay equity, workplace safety and union laws. It would expand employee protections, increase some wages and benefits, and give government agencies stronger enforcement powers.

The bill is at first reading. It would need to pass before any of these changes take effect.

  • Workers would generally be presumed to be employees unless the employer proves otherwise.
  • Job ads would have to include expected pay and disclose certain uses of artificial intelligence in hiring.
  • Vacation eligibility would improve, overtime would begin sooner for many workers, and employees would receive up to five paid sick days.
  • Employers would face new rules for tips, workplace toilets, unpaid wages and pay equity.
  • Union certification rules would change, replacement workers during strikes or lockouts would be prohibited, and some workplace closures would be restricted during protected periods.

What it means for you#

  • Employees: Three weeks of vacation would become available after five years with an employer instead of eight years. Employees would also receive up to five paid sick days each year and at least 32 hours of rest in every seven-day period, instead of 24 hours.

  • Workers paid overtime: For most employees covered by the new rules, overtime would apply after more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. Hours beyond 12 in one day would be paid at double time. Short-haul and long-haul truck drivers would have special overtime rules.

  • Workers called in outside scheduled hours: An employee required to report for work outside scheduled hours would generally receive at least three hours of wages.

  • Job applicants: Job advertisements would have to state expected pay or a pay range. The range could not be more than $50,000 apart on an annual basis. Employers using artificial intelligence to screen or select applicants would have to disclose its use, purpose and the personal information provided to it. After an interview for a publicly advertised position, the employer would have 45 days to say whether a hiring decision had been made.

  • Workers receiving tips: Tips and certain customer surcharges would belong to employees. Employers could still pool and redistribute tips among employees. Employers could not use tips to meet minimum-wage obligations or deduct administrative charges from them. They would have to keep records and make them available to employees.

  • People treated as contractors: A person receiving payment from an employer would generally be presumed to be an employee. The employer could avoid that classification only by showing that specific conditions were met. Managers and people employed confidentially in labour-relations matters would be excluded from this presumption.

  • Employees of private businesses: Private-sector employers with 10 or more employees would be covered by expanded pay-equity rules. Employers would have to create pay-equity plans, review compensation at least every five years and make adjustments where required. Pay equity means equal pay for work of equal or comparable value. Employers could not lower anyone’s pay to achieve it.

  • Construction workers: Where a workplace must provide a toilet, a fixed flush toilet would generally be required at a construction site unless that was not reasonably possible. A portable flush toilet would be the next option. A chemical toilet could be used only when the other options were not reasonably possible.

  • Unionized workers and employers: A union with more than half of a bargaining unit’s employees as members could be certified without a vote. A vote would generally be required when membership was between 35% and 50%. Employers could not use paid or unpaid replacement workers to perform work normally done by employees on strike or locked out, except for agreed health and safety work.

  • Workplace closures: During certain protected periods around union organizing and first collective agreements, a workplace closure would be presumed unlawful if it affected union rights. The Labour Board could order a workplace reopened, require rehiring or compensation, and address the transfer of work to another employer.

Expenses#

The bill could increase costs for employers and government, but no overall cost estimate is provided.

  • Employers could face higher payroll costs from overtime, paid sick leave, vacation benefits, minimum reporting pay and pay-equity adjustments.
  • Employers could face administrative costs for pay-equity plans, records of tips, job-ad disclosures and compliance reviews.
  • Government would need to operate a proactive labour enforcement program and a new enforcement unit. The bill does not provide a dollar estimate for these costs.
  • Government could also face costs for expanded pay-equity administration, complaints and appeals.
  • Employers could face fines and other penalties for violations. The bill allows penalties of up to $100,000 per day for some strike-related violations and creates pay-equity fines, but the actual amount of administrative penalties would be set later by regulations.
  • No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

No specific public statements from proponents were supplied. Based on the bill’s text, possible arguments in favour include:

  • The bill appears intended to make it easier for workers to prove they are employees and receive workplace protections.
  • Requiring pay information in job ads could help applicants compare jobs and reduce uncertainty during hiring.
  • Paid sick leave, earlier overtime eligibility and improved vacation access could increase workers’ income and time away from work.
  • Tip protections and records could give employees more control and transparency over money collected for them.
  • Expanded pay-equity rules could help identify and correct differences between female and male job classes doing work of equal or comparable value.
  • Proactive inspections and stronger union protections could improve compliance with labour laws.

Opponents' View#

No specific public statements from opponents were supplied. Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:

  • Employers could face significant new wage, benefit, record-keeping and compliance costs, especially smaller businesses with 10 or more employees.
  • The bill leaves several important details to future regulations, including pay-equity deadlines, reporting requirements, comparison methods and administrative penalties.
  • The definition of who is an employee, and the rules for managers and contractors, could lead to disputes about coverage and employment status.
  • The overtime rules contain different standards for general employees, short-haul drivers and long-haul drivers. The bill does not explain how all scheduling and pay conflicts would be handled in practice.
  • Pay-equity committees could require paid employee time, employer information and ongoing reviews. The voting rules provide that an employer group’s vote can prevail if employee representatives cannot reach a unanimous decision.
  • Restrictions on replacement workers and workplace closures could limit an employer’s ability to operate during a labour dispute or reorganize a business. The bill gives the Labour Board broad powers to order reopening, rehiring or compensation.
  • The bill does not clearly state when each change would start.