6 / 10 100% + .pdf work". The claimant's husband picked up the envelope containing the Record of Employment at the Employer's office and brought it to their home. That was the last meeting between the claimant and the Employer. 21. On these facts, the Board finds that the Employer has not discharged its burden of proving that it had a genuine operational reason for not reinstating the claimant to employment upon the conclusion of her pregnancy leave. As described below, despite the introduction of a rose sorting line and computer upgrade into the Employer's operation, the majority of the claimant's previous work duties including bouquet production, retail sales, purchasing, and inventory entry continued to be available and necessary work. The Board finds that the Employer's decision not to reinstate the claimant to employment was motivated, at least to some degree, by the claimant's taking of pregnancy leave. 22. There are several reasons for the Board's finding. Prior to her announcing her pregnancy leave, the claimant was progressing on an upward career path with the Employer. She started out as a peak period employee. Then she became full-time. In December 2000, she - 7 - received enhanced duties and a pay increase. In January 2001, she was selected to attend an employee. educational course. By all objective measures, she appeared to be considered a valuable 23. But almost immediately after announcing her pregnancy to the Employer in May 2002. her attendance at the educational course was cancelled. No valid operational reason was provided in evidence for this cancellation. The claimant was perfectly able to go. One of N LRB canlii25608 Pr..pdf24. Over the years 2001 and 2002, the Employer was implementing productivity 2003 CanLll 25 improvements in its operation. The Board accepts Andrew's evidence that ongoing changes were being made to the Employer's flower sorting and computer equipment. However, these changes were known or at least contemplated in June 2002 when he confirmed the claimant's job would be available on her return to work in a modified format. 25. Yet in October 2002, this job was suddenly no longer available. The Employer said there was a shortage of work, although nothing more had happened than the planned introduction of the rose sorting line and the computer upgrade. The computer data entry, the bouquet production, the retail sales and the packaging of flowers all remained necessary work for the Employer's operation, with appropriate modifications. The claimant had done all this work. Instead, Somboon was assigned bouquet making, and the remaining duties were otherwise divided amongst the Employer's staff. The Employer explained that Somboon was retained because she had more seniority than the claimant. 26. The Board does not accept the Employer's explanation. At all times, Somboon had more seniority than the claimant. Nevertheless, the claimant was promoted over Somboon, given a pay increase, and selected for an educational course over Somboon. The claimant also has a horticultural diploma. She was clearly a preferred employee to Somboon prior to advising the Employer of her pregnancy. After the announcement of the pregnancy, the Employer's attitude towards her clearly chilled. It appears to the Board that the Employer was displeased by what it perceived as potential adjustments to the claimant's hours and other accommodations it felt it might be called on to make due to her pregnancy and pregnancy leave. 27. The Board finds that but for the claimant's pregnancy and pregnancy leave the Employer would have retained her in employment over Somboon. The claimant's relative lack of seniority had never been a consideration to the Employer prior to October 2002. The Employer's decision to lay off the claimant in October 2002 was tainted by an improper motive. The claimant is worse off on account of her pregnancy. Therefore, the statutory protection of sections 53 and 74 is engaged. The Board declares that the Employer has violated sections 53 and 74 of the Act, and must compensate the claimant for all losses arising from its violations of the Act. RELATED EMPLOYER ISSUE 03 Pr...pdf ARELATED EMPLOYER ISSUE Early in the hearing, the Board raised with the parties the issue of whether the Board 28. should treat the Employer and Grower as one employer for the purposes of the Act pursuant to Section 14 of the Act. This would require giving notice to Grower of this proceeding. No party wished to adjourn the hearing to do so. 8 - 29. Notwithstanding the above, in his final argument, counsel for the Director of Employment Standards requested that the Board treat Grower and Employer as one employer for the purposes of the Act. The Board declines to do so. Grower has not received notice of this proceeding. To make an order against Grower without providing notice to it, and an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. In any event, the evidence before the Board establishes that Mark gave direction to the claimant as part of the Employer's managerial team, and that the Employer had a comparable position to which the claimant would have been returned, but for the Employer's violation of the Act. No further remedy than those contained herein is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. 30 2003 CanLII 25608 (ON LRB) For all of these reasons, the Board determines that no order will be issued with respect to Grower. REMEDY mi25608 Pro.pdf8 / 10 100% + ive (1).pdf 2003 0 REMEDY 31. The Board has reviewed the damages awarded by the Employment Standards Officer in the Order to Pay and finds that the Officer erred in both applying the heads of damages and calculating the losses thereunder. No useful purpose would be served in critiquing the damages listed in the Order to Pay. Pursuant to subsection 119(6) of the Act, the Board may: ... with necessary modifications, exercise the powers conferred on an employment standards officer under this Act and may substitute its findings for those of the officer who issued the order or refused to issue the order. Therefore, the Board will assess damages with regard to the established heads of damages for persons terminated in violation of the pregnancy leave provisions of the Act as set out in the applicable jurisprudence: see Ontario Corp. #588482 (c.o.b. Wildlife Habitat Canada), [1996] O.E.S.A.D. No. 104 (Novick) upheld on judicial review (Ont. Div. Ct. Nov. 19, 1996); Bracebridge Villa, [2000] OLRB Rep. July/August 591. (i) Direct Wage Loss 32. Under the category of direct wage loss, the claimant is entitled to be compensated to the degree necessary to ensure that she is no worse off than if the breach of the Act had not occurred: Wah Lung Labels Canada Inc., supra. 33. The claimant stated that she no longer wishes to work in the greenhouse industry. Therefore, an appropriate award is monetary damages without reinstatement. 34. The Board finds, on the evidence adduced before it, that but for the breach of the Act, the claimant would have completed her pregnancy leave as scheduled and returned to work on or about December 11, 2002. She would then have continued to work for the Employer from that date until February 1, 2003, when she was given medical advice that she should no longer work. Accordingly, she would have earned seven weeks wages plus applicable vacation pay. 35. The Board finds that there should be no reduction in this amount on account of the failure of the claimant to mitigate her damages. It was appropriate for her to seek work at large retail employers in the local area, and she took reasonable steps to do so. The burden of 2003canlit25608 Pr..pdfpar Graffifant this failed to mitigate her carriages rests with the party allegation: Red Deer College v. Michaels, (1975), 57 D.L.R (3") 386 (S.C.C.). No evidence was presented by the Employer that the claimant failed to take a job she was qualified to do. - 9 . 36. Accordingly, the Board awards the claimant damages for direct wage loss in the amount of $2,618.00 and applicable vacation pay on the lost wages at the rate of 4% for a further amount of $104.72. (ii) Loss of Job/Loss of Reasonable Expectation of Continued Employment 37. This head of damages is intended as compensation for the lost opportunities when an employment relationship is ended unilaterally by an employer: Tracy Kemp ESC 93-145A, October 20, 1994 (Muir); Spinnaker Industries Inc., [1996] O.E.S.A.D. No. 34 (Bradbury). 2003 CanLil 25608 (ON LRB) 38. The Board's standard level of compensation under this criterion of damages is to award a month's salary for each year of service: Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc., [1998] O.E.S.A.D. No. 16 Board File No. 2466-96-ES, January 7, 1998, Bracebridge Villa, supra; Arva Industries, [2001 ] O.E.S.A.D. No. 349. 39. The Board agrees with the Employer's position that damages for loss of job are correctly calculated on the basis of four months or 3.42 years service. The amount of $5,538.41, employment. is therefore awarded to the claimant as damages for loss of job/loss of reasonable expectation of 2003canlit25608 Pr...pdf(iii) Job Search Expenses 40. No damages were proven for expenses incurred in seeking employment. No such damages will be awarded. (iv) Loss of Employment Insurance Benefits 41. Despite the novel argument of counsel for the claimant, no damages under this head will be awarded. The only case where such damages were awarded is Royce, [1993] O.E.S.A.D. No. 186 (Novick) where the employee was pregnant at the time she should have been reinstated. That is not the case here. Other heads of damages adequately compensate the claimant. (v) Emotional Pain And Suffering 42. This head of damages compensates for the humiliation and real hurt suffered by a person terminated in violation of the Act: Bracebridge Villa, supra. 43. In the text Employment Standards And Human Rights Remedies, (Melanie Manning, Aurora: Canada Law Book, 2003), the factors to be considered in the assessment of such damages have been catalogued from the case law as follows: the loss of security of a full-time job; the financial hardship; the stress; . the loss of sleep; the increase in severity of headaches, and the effect on family relations. In this case, no formal medical evidence was presented. However, the claimant experienced anger, stress, financial hardship and the loss of the security of a full-time job. She lives in a inlii25608 Prom.pdf(v) gives information to an employment standards officer, (vi) testifies or is required to testify or otherwise participates or is going to participate in a proceeding 2003 CanLII 25608 (ON LRB under this Act, (vii) participates in proceedings respecting a by-law or proposed by-law under section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act, (viii) is or will become eligible to take a leave, intends to take a leave or takes a leave under Part XIV; or (b) because the employer is or may be required, because of a court order or garnishment, to pay to a third party an amount owing by the employer to the employee. (2) Subject to subsection 122 (4), in any proceeding under this Act, the burden of proof that an employer did not contravene a provision set out in this section lies upon the employer. The Officer then assessed damages payable to the claimant by the Employer as follows: Termination Pay - $1,122.00; Lost Wages for Time to Find a New Job - $374.00; Vacation Pay on termination pay and lost wages - $59.84; Loss of Reasonable Expectation of Continued Employment: $2,558.16; Emotional Pain and Suffering $500.00. No damages were assessed for Direct Wage Loss or Expenses Incurred in Seeking New Employment. The Employer contests all liability, and in the alternative, contests the quantum of damages. The claimant seeks greater damages. 3 . At the outset of the hearing, the Board advised the parties of the decision in Coburg Nissan Lid., [2003] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 32, wherein the Board held that its legal authority to order an appropriate remedy is unrestricted in an application for review of an Order issued by an Employment Standards Officer. The Board then raised the possibility of mediation, but all parties elected to proceed with a hearing conducted in the conventional fashion. The Board held the hearing. Oral testimony was given by Andrew Thiessen on behalf of the Employer, and by the 1925608 Pr...pdf ADirect Wage Loss or Expenses Incurred in Seeking New Employment. The Employer contests all liability, and in the alternative, contests the quantum of damages. The claimant seeks greater damages. 3. At the outset of the hearing, the Board advised the parties of the decision in Coburg Nissan Lid., [2003] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 32, wherein the Board held that its legal authority to order an appropriate remedy is unrestricted in an application for review of an Order issued by an Employment Standards Officer. The Board then raised the possibility of mediation, but all parties elected to proceed with a hearing conducted in the conventional fashion. The Board held the hearing. Oral testimony was given by Andrew Thiessen on behalf of the Employer, and by the claimant Denys Singkhaew. Documentary evidence was also introduced. In coming to its decision, the Board has considered all of the evidence in light of the usual testimonial factors, and with regard to what is most probable in all of the circumstances. 4. The Employer operates a greenhouse and flower growing operation in the Leamington, Ontario area. The claimant was initially hired for the Valentine's Day peak period in February 1999. She was brought back again for the Mother's Day peak period in May 1999. Commencing immediately thereafter, the Employer employed her on a steady basis from mid - May 1999 until she took her pregnancy leave on November 30, 2001. It is undisputed that the claimant began her employment in the capacity of a general labourer. Her duties included grading and sorting flowers, and assembling bouquets. 25608 Pr....pdf ATechnology for completing a two-year course in horticulture. As her employment progressed with the Employer, she was given a greater and more responsible range of duties. 6. Exactly what duties were to be performed by the claimant, by whom they were assigned, and for whom they were to be done, are matters of some complexity in this case. The claimant at all relevant times received her monetary remuneration from Thiessen Greenhouse Flowers Ltd., the Employer named in the Order to Pay. The owners of the Employer are Peter and Gloria Thiessen. One of their sons, Andrew Thiessen ("Andrew") is a Vice-President and 2003 CanLII 25608 (ON LRB) day-to-day Operations Manager of the Employer. Another son, Mark Thiessen ("Mark") is also an officer of the Employer. But Mark is also the principal of Buy Easy Lid., which operates an Internet flower selling business known as Grower Flowers.com ("Grower") on the same property and with the same fax number as the Employer, albeit with its own office space and telephone number. According to the claimant, she was told to take instructions from all of Peter, Andrew and Mark Thiessen, and her evidence on this point was not shaken in cross-examination. 7. On December 22, 2000 the claimant received a letter addressed to her on Grower letterhead, signed by Mark Thiessen. It begins by praising the claimant's work performance and then goes on to say: "We would like to further enhance your skills as the leader and product manager of our Internet business". It continues by listing certain managerial skills, and then describing particular skills the claimant should be "working on". It concludes "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from all the Thiessens". However, in a subsequent meeting with the claimant, both Mark and Andrew met with her to explain her new job duties, which in their own words was the work of a "manager". She also received a pay increase effective with the letter. 8. In her evidence, the claimant described her duties as comprising approximately 60% bouquet making, 30% inventory and purchasing, and 10% retail sales, employee instruction and general duties. She reported to Andrew Thiessen, but it is clear from all the evidence that she regularly took direction from Mark Thiessen as well. Employees of the Employer were closely integrated into the operations of Grower in their day-to-day activities. On behalf of the Employer, the claimant regularly supervised the work of four other employees of the Employer: two employees performing flower grading duties, and two employees making bouquets. One of these employees was Somboon, a more senior employee. Occasionally she supervised other employees as well. Furthermore, she worked closely with Grower's employees, including Lisa and Achlay to enenra that the Emalover produced bouquete and out flautare in Grower's quality lii25608 Pra.pdfspecifications. The claimant pitched in where necessary to perform any sundry work required by the Employer, including purchasing general supplies for the operation, and bagging and selling apples. 9. In his evidence, Andrew agreed with the claimant's description of the overall composition of her job duties, but disagreed to the extent which the various duties were required to be performed. He testified that the claimant's duties could be broken down as follows: 35- 40% purchasing and inventory; 35-40% bouquets; 10-20% retail sales. He did not agree that she supervised other staff but stated that she did "check on things". While he did not consider the claimant to be a Production Manager, he was sure the term Purchasing Manager "has been used to some degree". His evidence was to the effect that Somboon and the claimant worked together as part of a "team effort". 10. The Board does not find the differences between the evidence given by Andrew and the claimant as to her job duties to be significant. From 70-90% of her time was devoted to - 4 - bouquet production, inventory and purchasing. The balance of her time was spent on retail sales and general duties. There was a significant overlap between the duties of the claimant and Somboon. Although Somboon had greater seniority than the claimant, the Employer entrusted the claimant with greater responsibilities and a supervisory, though arguably not managerial, role. 11. There is no dispute that the claimant obtained a leave of absence from the Employer pursuant to the pregnancy leave provision prescribed by section 46 of the Act. She was approved ON LRB) for maternity and parental benefits by Human Resources Development Canada. Section 53 of the 03canlii25608 Pr....pdfspecifications. The claimant pitched in where necessary to perform any sundry work required by the Employer, including purchasing general supplies for the operation, and bagging and selling apples. 9. In his evidence, Andrew agreed with the claimant's description of the overall composition of her job duties, but disagreed to the extent which the various duties were required to be performed. He testified that the claimant's duties could be broken down as follows: 35- 40% purchasing and inventory; 35-40% bouquets; 10-20% retail sales. He did not agree that she supervised other staff but stated that she did "check on things". While he did not consider the claimant to be a Production Manager, he was sure the term Purchasing Manager "has been used to some degree". His evidence was to the effect that Somboon and the claimant worked together as part of a "team effort". 10. The Board does not find the differences between the evidence given by Andrew and the claimant as to her job duties to be significant. From 70-90% of her time was devoted to - 4 - bouquet production, inventory and purchasing. The balance of her time was spent on retail sales and general duties. There was a significant overlap between the duties of the claimant and Somboon. Although Somboon had greater seniority than the claimant, the Employer entrusted the claimant with greater responsibilities and a supervisory, though arguably not managerial, role. 11. There is no dispute that the claimant obtained a leave of absence from the Employer pursuant to the pregnancy leave provision prescribed by section 46 of the Act. She was approved ON LRB) for maternity and parental benefits by Human Resources Development Canada. Section 53 of the 03canlii25608 Pr....pdf(1).pdf knowledge that she will be leaving her work for an extended period of time and she will be concerned that her employment prospects and advancement might be prejudiced during her impending absence. She will suffer a drop in income during her maternity leave, so her capacity to continue to work during her pregnancy is important to her financial projection for her maternity. It is relatively easy for an employer to discount the value of an employee who has become pregnant, to cease to 'see' her and to overlook her in future planning because she will be away during the period of her - 5 - maternity leave. It is difficult for a pregnant employee to contest business decisions which are made by the employer and which affect her adversely. She is beset by child care responsibilities at precisely the time she needs to be gathering information which may assist her to establish the absence of bona fides on the part of the employer. All of these considerations militate towards the conclusion that, in respect of some prejudicial decision affecting an employee known to be pregnant (just like an employee returning from maternity leave), an inference will be drawn that the reason for the prejudice suffered by the employee is her pregnancy. Having said this, I do not mean to suggest that an employer may never take action in relation to a pregnant employee which is prejudicial towards her. A 2003 CanLII 25608 (ON LRB) pregnant employee is no better off than any other employee merely on account of her pregnancy. The purpose of section 44 [now 74] of the Act is to ensure that she is in no worse position. That means that if an employer has a genuine operational reason for taking an adverse decision against a pregnant employee (c.g. misconduct resulting in discipline: real economic 2003canlii25608 Pr. .pdf5 / 10 100% .pdf 15. In this case, the Board cannot conclude that the Employer's only reason for terminating the claimant's employment was a genuine operational reason. In coming to this conclusion, the Board has considered several significant events in the claimant's employment history, which are discussed next. 16. The claimant first worked for the Employer on a temporary basis during a peak period. Then she became a full-time employee in May 1999. She had a horticultural diploma. The Employer was impressed with her work and knowledge. The letter she received from Mark on December 22, 2000 is significant: It begins as follows: Dear Denys, We have been monitoring your performance over the past few weeks and would like to discuss the results with you. You have been doing a great job with the following: Accuracy and quality control of order preparation; WNE Accuracy of using the computer, Handling the large amounts of order processing for Express Roses in a timely fashion; 4) You are always on time for work and well-prepared; 5 ) You are very intelligent in being able to accurately order and manage all the product purchases and paper work; Keeping up with the frequently changing bouquets; Many more great things about you. Although the letter is on Grower's letterhead, Mark was an officer of the Employer at the time. In practice, the operations of Grower and the Employer were closely integrated. Employees were directed to take orders from any and all of Mark, Andrew and Peter Thiessen. Accordingly, the Board finds that Mark was part of the Employer's managerial team and thus a person acting on behalf of the Employer. Mark could and did put the claimant in charge of giving direction to the 3canlii25608 Pro.pdf5 / 10 100% .pdf 15. In this case, the Board cannot conclude that the Employer's only reason for terminating the claimant's employment was a genuine operational reason. In coming to this conclusion, the Board has considered several significant events in the claimant's employment history, which are discussed next. 16. The claimant first worked for the Employer on a temporary basis during a peak period. Then she became a full-time employee in May 1999. She had a horticultural diploma. The Employer was impressed with her work and knowledge. The letter she received from Mark on December 22, 2000 is significant: It begins as follows: Dear Denys, We have been monitoring your performance over the past few weeks and would like to discuss the results with you. You have been doing a great job with the following: Accuracy and quality control of order preparation; WNE Accuracy of using the computer, Handling the large amounts of order processing for Express Roses in a timely fashion; 4) You are always on time for work and well-prepared; 5 ) You are very intelligent in being able to accurately order and manage all the product purchases and paper work; Keeping up with the frequently changing bouquets; Many more great things about you. Although the letter is on Grower's letterhead, Mark was an officer of the Employer at the time. In practice, the operations of Grower and the Employer were closely integrated. Employees were directed to take orders from any and all of Mark, Andrew and Peter Thiessen. Accordingly, the Board finds that Mark was part of the Employer's managerial team and thus a person acting on behalf of the Employer. Mark could and did put the claimant in charge of giving direction to the 3canlii25608 Pro.pdf5 / 10 100% .pdf 15. In this case, the Board cannot conclude that the Employer's only reason for terminating the claimant's employment was a genuine operational reason. In coming to this conclusion, the Board has considered several significant events in the claimant's employment history, which are discussed next. 16. The claimant first worked for the Employer on a temporary basis during a peak period. Then she became a full-time employee in May 1999. She had a horticultural diploma. The Employer was impressed with her work and knowledge. The letter she received from Mark on December 22, 2000 is significant: It begins as follows: Dear Denys, We have been monitoring your performance over the past few weeks and would like to discuss the results with you. You have been doing a great job with the following: Accuracy and quality control of order preparation; WNE Accuracy of using the computer, Handling the large amounts of order processing for Express Roses in a timely fashion; 4) You are always on time for work and well-prepared; 5 ) You are very intelligent in being able to accurately order and manage all the product purchases and paper work; Keeping up with the frequently changing bouquets; Many more great things about you. Although the letter is on Grower's letterhead, Mark was an officer of the Employer at the time. In practice, the operations of Grower and the Employer were closely integrated. Employees were directed to take orders from any and all of Mark, Andrew and Peter Thiessen. Accordingly, the Board finds that Mark was part of the Employer's managerial team and thus a person acting on behalf of the Employer. Mark could and did put the claimant in charge of giving direction to the 3canlii25608 Pro.pdf(1).pdf Employer's staff. Andrew's evidence and that of the claimant demonstrates that Andrew allowed Mark to give orders to the Employer's employees and did not countermand them. 17. In January 2001, Mark directed the claimant to select a horticultural education course to be taken over the May 2001 Victoria Day weekend, because of her skill in doing bouquet design. The course would provide the claimant with additional skills that could be used in both the Employer's and Grower's businesses. In early May 2001, the claimant advised Andrew of her pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, Mark told the claimant she would not be going to the course, and sent Lisa Stubbard, a Grower employee instead. Mark did not testify. Andrew provided no satisfactory explanation why the sudden switch was made. In these circumstances, the Board 2003 CanLII 25608 (ON LRB) concludes that the only logical explanation for the claimant being dropped from the course was her announced pregnancy. After Lisa returned from the course, she and the claimant worked together, using knowledge Lisa had gained in the course. 18. From Victoria Day 2001 onward, the claimant's employment continued uneventfully until she took her maternity leave at the end of November 2001. In June 2002, about halfway through her scheduled pregnancy leave, the claimant attended a meeting with Andrew to discuss her eventual return to work to the Employer at the end of her leave. Andrew and the claimant discussed her anticipated hours of work and potential modifications to her duties, which would involve the claimant spending more time on grading, sorting and packaging of flowers and retail sales, but less time on bouquets. It was agreed the claimant would work 8 hours per day, rather than 9 or 10. In his testimony, Andrew stated that he confirmed the claimant's job was "available in a modified format". 19. On October 17, 2002, Andrew held another meeting with the claimant, at which he requested that her husband be present. The claimant's husband worked for the Employer. He grew flowers and did maintenance work. Several other relatives of the claimant also worked for the Employer. At the meeting, Andrew told the claimant that she would not be returning to work for the Employer as scheduled because of a shortage of work. 20. The claimant, not surprisingly, was very upset at this turn of events. She went home quite angry. The next day she contacted Human Resources Development Canada to inquire about Employment Insurance benefits. Shortly thereafter she filed the instant complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Labour. On October 21, 2002, the Employer issued her a Record of Employment showing the reason for separation from employment as "lay off due to shortage of 2003canlii25608 Pra..pdfONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD 4055-02-ES Thiessen Greenhouse Flowers Ltd., Applicant v. Denys Singkhaew and Director of Employment Standards, Responding Parties. Employment Practices Branch File No. 62005923 BEFORE: Jack J. Slaughter, Vice-Chair. 2003 CanLil 25608 (ON LRB) APPEARANCES: Elvey Marshall and Andrew Thiessen appearing for the applicant; David Deluzio and Denys Singkhaew for Denys Singkhaew; Joe Ferraro appearing for Director of Employment Standards. DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 12, 2003 1. This is an application for review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, as amended (the "Act") in favour of the employee claimant Denys Singkhaew, filed by Thiessen Greenhouse Flowers Lid. (the "Employer"). 2. In issuing the Order to Pay, Employment Standards Officer Sharon Zakoor found the Employer in violation of Sections 53 and 74 of the Act. Those sections state as follows: 53. (1) Upon the conclusion of an employee's leave under this Part, the employer shall reinstate the employee to the position the employee most recently held with the employer, if it still exists, or to a comparable position, if it does not. (2) Subsection ( 1) does not apoly if the employment of the employee is 2003canlii25608 Pr...pdf