HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-06-029 - Bill 211 Ending Manatory Retirement1
Ki~~.R
~hiefAdministraror's
Off)ce
REPORT
Report To: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
Date of Meeting: May 15, 2006
Submitted By: Doug Paterson
Prepared By: Doug Paterson
Ward(s) Involved: n/a
Date of Report: April 20, 2006
Report No.: CAO-06-029
Subject: BILL 211 ENDING MANDATORY RETIREMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
REPORT:
On December 12, 2005, Bill 211 ending mandatory retirement was given Royal Assent by the
Ontario Legislative Assembly. The legislation amends the Ontario Human Rights Code and
other legislation so as to prohibit employers from forcing employees to retire upon reaching a
specific age. One year following Royal Assent, from December 12, 2006, it will be unlawful to
compel employees to retire at a specific age. This 12 month window provides time for
employers to evaluate and amend policies and contractual agreements to remove any reference
to mandatory retirement. It should be noted that any residual language concerning mandatory
retirement existing after December 12, 2006, is deemed to be null and void.
At the present time, the City has two mandatory retirement ages. Age 65 applies to the majority
of our workforce including the civilian section of the Fire Department. Age 60 applies to the
uniformed sections -Fire Suppression, Fire Prevention - of the Fire Department. It is presumed
that a mandatory retirement age of 60 will still be considered legal because it is a bona fide
occupational requirement for these groups of the Fire Department. A bona fide occupational
requirement is an employment requirement that is discriminatory on certain grounds, including
age, but that is allowed under the Ontario Human Rights Code because of the nature of the
employment.
The legislation has been drafted to maintain the status quo with respect to a number of benefits
related issues. While it is unlikely that major changes will take place in the workplace
immediately following the end of mandatory retirement, Human Resources staff have been
studying the anticipated impacts on the City in order to be prepared for any changes.
a} WSIB continues to function the same as pre the passage of Bill 211. Employees'
entitlement to WSIB loss of earnings benefits ends upon reaching age 65, unless the worker is
63 years of age or older on the date of injury, in which case he or she is entitled to receive loss
of earnings benefits for up to two years from the date of injury.
b) Extended health care, dental, short term and long term wage replacement plans are not
required to be provided to employees beyond the 65th birthday.
c) Under OMERS legislation, an individual can contribute beyond age 65 but contributions
must cease and pension must be paid when the employee turns 69 years of age.
d) In recruitment, we are precluded from discriminating against an individual 18 years of
age or older; therefore, employees could be recruited beyond age 65. (At present, this is a
situation that occurs with respect to crossing guards and some of our "9000" part time staff,
particularly at the Auditorium).
e) With respect to retention, employees cannot be terminated simply because they reach
the age of 65 and can continue to work with no mandatory retirement or fixed termination date.
In considering the impact of the legislation, Human Resources staff have identified a number of
areas for which there may be future risk to the Corporation. The amount of risk is difficult to
quantify and the likelihood of the risk materializing is equally unknown.
The legislation purports to provide an "out" for an employer being obliged to provide benefits
after age 65. While that is clear in the legislation, staff are unconvinced that the legislation will
stand the test of courts or perhaps the Human Rights Code.
Another area of concern is that employees working beyond 65 are not entitled to coverage
beyond two years under WSIB, which raises the possibility of employees potentially suing their
employer should they experience a work related injury. Further to this, the duty to accommodate
under the Human Rights Code will apply and we are uncertain as to how we will deal with this in
the absence of WSIB infrastructure and adjudication mechanisms.
Statistical Trends
Staff have reviewed retirement data for 2000 to 2005 inclusive, and have identified that, of the
110 employees who retired, the average age at retirement was 57.
Looking at the City's workforce for the next five years (2006 to 2011), Human Resources
anticipates 28 full-time staff will reach the age of 65 (cumulatively). Currently the City employs
56 part-time staff older than 65 (the majority as crossing guards and in the 9000 series jobs,
such as event attendants and course instructors).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Unknown at this time.
CONCLUSION
In the fall of this year, Human Resources will table a report with Council recommending changes
to policies and operating procedures which will bring the City into compliance with the
legislation. Staff anticipate a number of housekeeping changes to bring collective agreements
and City policies into alignment with the intent of the legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
Doug Paterson, Director Human Resources