Complaint section 32: the agency’s client no longer needed him after his accident.
Release date: September 5, 2017
A day labourer challenged the rejection of his complaint under section 32 AIAOD. He argued that he was subjected to an illegal sanction following a work-related injury. While employed by a placement agency, he was involved in a workplace accident three weeks after his assignment with a client. A few days later, the client notified the agency to the effect that his services were no longer needed. The work had been completed despite the employee’s absence, and the client was about to close for the holiday season. Some of the agency’s employees remained under the client’s employ, but they had been there longer than the employee. No new employee had been sent to the client following the accident. Despite the fact that the employer was trying to find employment for him with another client, the employee insisted on getting his employment statement before lodging his complaint. According to the judge, a placement agency does not have the freedom to decide when to reinstate an employee with one of its clients. The employee’s non-reinstatement did not arise from a right prescribed by the AIAOD, but from the client’s lack of need for manpower. The complaint was rejected.
Bourke v. A.S.T. Inc., 2017 QCTAT 376 (SST), Jean-Claude Danis Esq.
From bulletin Gestion Plus
To suscribe, click here!
Back to the list
To the exclusive service of employers, Le Corre offers training workshops and publications on subjects solely pertaining to labour law. Both these tools help managers and human resources professionals to deal more effectively with the daily legal framework of their businesses.