Individual's Success Stories:

1) A group of eight Filipino Temporary Foreign Workers were referred to the CWRC by the Centre for Newcomers. These workers had concerns over their working conditions at a major fast food chain in Calgary, and about the recruitment fees they had paid in order to come and work in Calgary. One of the workers had recently quit her job with the fast food chain, but the managers at the restaurant she worked at made illegal deductions from her final pay so that she essentially had nothing left, and her employers were trying to intimidate her into leaving the country. The workers were highly distraught. After listening to their stories, the CWRC informed the workers of their rights under the Alberta Employment Standards Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Code, and the Alberta Fair Trade Act. The CWRC informed the TFWs that the recruitment fees they had paid to come to Calgary were illegal under the Alberta Fair Trade Act, and that the unauthorized and unreasonable deductions the employer had made from the one worker's last pay were illegal under the Employment Standards Code. The CWRC informed Alberta Employment Standards of the situation, and helped the workers throughout the complaint process. As a result of the CWRC's advocacy and collaboration with Employment Standards, the one worker who had quit her job was reimbursed the $750 in illegal deductions the employer had made from her last cheque, as well as $1,000 in illegal recruitment fees. Moreover, the Employment Standards Officer who investigated the case stated that the employer had agreed to reimburse each of the approximately 220 TFWs who were working for them in Calgary $1,000 worth of illegal recruitment fees. The CWRC was able to follow-up with another four of the eight TFWs that had initially sought the agency's assistance, and they confirmed that they also received the $1,000 reimbursement.

2) Janice (not her real name), is an immigrant from China with limited English communication skills who worked in a nursing home in Calgary. She suffered a work-related injury, and was fired shortly thereafter by her employer. She heard about the CWRC through word of mouth, and sought the CWRC’s advice and support in relation to her situation. Janice’s case was quite complex, as it straddled four different legislations: the Alberta Employment Standards Code; the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act; Workers’ Compensation; and Employment Insurance. The CWRC helped Janice successfully navigate the claims and complaint processes associated with each of these bureaucracies. As a result of CWRC intervention and collaboration with these various institutions, she successfully obtained EI regular benefits, and financial compensation through WCB. Given that the employer had not given her two weeks written notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice (as required for an employee who was being let go without just cause, and who had been working for her employer for more than 2 but less than 4 years), the CWRC also submitted a Request for Payment directly to the employer (Employment Standards expects workers to first try to resolve grievances with their employers informally, via the Request for Payment process). When the employer failed to respond to the request during the next 10 days, the CWRC helped Janice file a complaint with Employment Standards. Her complaint was investigated, and Employment Standards ordered the employer to pay Janice $1,038 in termination pay. Moreover, given that it appeared that Janice had been fired as a result of circumstances tied to her work-related injury, the CWRC helped her file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, on the grounds that the employer had discriminated against her because of a physical disability. Janice received $14,000 in compensation for damages and lost wages.

Without the CWRC’s assistance, Janice would have had to attempt to navigate the complex claims and complaint systems of four different bureaucracies by herself, which would have been extremely difficult given her language barriers. Given her limited earnings prior to losing her job, and the language barriers and aggravated back injury that might affect her employability in the future, the financial benefits and medical support the CWRC helped Janice become entitled to enabled her to keep her head above water. The CWRC also referred Janice to Champions Career Centre, which helps persons with disabilities find jobs that are suitable given their physical limitations.

3) Luis (not the client's real name) is a Temporary Foreign Worker. Like Canadian workers, Luis paid into Employment Insurance, so that if he lost his job through no fault of his own, he might have some income to support him while he searches for another job. During the recession of 2009, Luis was laid off from his job. When Luis applied on his own for Employment Insurance benefits, the EI Commission denied his claim on the grounds that he was not "available, capable and willing to work," as defined by the Employment Insurance Act, because he had lost the sole employer he was authorized to work with. Until Luis found another employer with government authorization to hire foreign workers, he would remain disentitled from receiving Employment Insurance regular benefits due to a technicality. Luis appealed the decision to the EI Board of Referees, but his appeal was dismissed. When Luis was referred to the Calgary Workers' Resource Centre, the case worker helped him file an appeal with the EI Umpire, referring to precedents established in EI jurisprudence that refuted the points of view of both the EI Commission and Board of Referees that TFWs were "unavailable" to work when they lost their employment with the employer named in their work permit. Upon reviewing the information presented by the CWRC, the Commission conceded that it had erred in its interpretation of the legislation, and the Umpire ruled that Luis was entitled to Employment Insurance benefits as a result of his lay-off, while his work permit remained valid and he continued to search actively for another employer. Without the CWRC's aid, Luis and his family would have had no income to tide them over during his period of unemployment, as TFWs are not eligible for income supports from Alberta Works or other sources.

4) Maria (not the client's real name) is a 24 year old woman from Mexico who moved to Canada with her Canadian husband who was sponsoring her for permanent residency. Maria speaks only limited English and was abused both physically and sexually by her husband, who subsequently abandoned her when she reported the abuse to the police. She was denied Alberta Works income assistance because she was being sponsored by her husband and accessed CWRC services as a "drop in." She was extremely distressed and stated that she had no income and that she was at risk of eviction. After interviewing Maria, the CWRC case worker realized that she had been employed long enough in the last 52 weeks that she probably had enough insurable hours to qualify for EI regular benefits, but she was 6 months late in making her application (the EI Commission can deny benefits to claimants who do not file their claims within 4 weeks of losing their job). The case worker helped Maria obtain her Record of Employment from her employer, then helped her apply for EI benefits and was able to convince the Commission that Maria had good reasons for her delayed application. Moreover, because Maria had been dismissed from her previous job, the case worker had to prove to the Commission that the claimant had lost her job through no fault of her own. The abuse she experienced at the hands of her husband contributed to her lateness and performance problems at work, but the Commission eventually agreed that Maria was not guilty of misconduct under the EI Act, and therefore was eligible for 21 weeks of EI regular benefits. The CWRC case worker's successful advocacy with EI in turn made her eligible for income support from Alberta Works once her EI benefits ran out (the recession made it difficult for Maria to find other employment), and this was achieved with the assistance of a case worker at the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society. The CWRC also connected Maria to other counseling and legal services.

5) James (not his real name) is a 55 year old man who was denied Employment Insurance because the Commission believed he was fired with just cause. At the time he accessed the CWRC's services, he had an EI Board of Referees hearing booked for that same week. James was also on the verge of being evicted from his home. The CWRC case worker helped the client access the Government of Alberta's Eviction Prevention Fund and also helped him obtain an adjournment for his EI appeal hearing so that he could receive proper representation at his hearing. With the CWRC case worker's assistance, James was able to convince the Board of Referees that the circumstances that led to his dismissal from work should not be viewed as misconduct. As a result of his successful appeal, James became entitled to 41 weeks of EI regular benefits ($17,507). James had, however, been late in submitting his application, so the case worker was able to help him justify the reason for his delay and thereby ensure that benefits would be paid from the date he lost his job, rather than from the date he made his application. James also had an outstanding debt to EI from seven or eight years prior that he had been unable to pay off. Given the financial hardship that James had experienced over the years, the CWRC case worker was able to convince the EI Commission to reduce the debt by half, and to arrange a manageable repayment plan for the remainder of the debt.

Had the CWRC not intervened, James's claim for EI regular benefits would have been denied, and he would have had a heavier debt load on his shoulders that could have resulted in his eviction and a severe risk of slipping deeper into poverty. The CWRC case worker also helped James access additional income and job search supports through other agencies.

6) Navreet is a recent immigrant who works in an industrial setting. She approached the Calgary Workers’ Resource Centre (CWRC) for assistance after her employer told her to start her maternity leave early, because the company did not want to keep accommodating her with the light duties they had initially assigned her as a result of some pregnancy-related health concerns she had. Navreet’s baby was not due to be born for another three months. Navreet believed that her employer’s request was unfair and unjust – and she was right. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, an employer has a duty to accommodate the particular needs that an employee may have that are associated with their pregnancy, to the point of undue hardship. For example, the employer should attempt to alter the work environment, or to ensure that the pregnant worker is not required to perform potentially harmful and physically demanding labour, so that the pregnant employee can keep working without risk of harm to herself or her unborn child. Failure to accommodate Navreet’s needs, as related to her pregnancy and health, could be considered discrimination under the Act. To make matters worse, Navreet would not even be able to collect Employment Insurance (EI) maternity benefits if she started her leave three months before her baby’s delivery date (the earliest one can start to receive EI maternity benefits is 8 weeks before the anticipated delivery date). The employer remained adamant that they could not provide her with 40 hours of light duties per week. The CWRC helped Navreet file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against her employer, based on the protected ground of gender (pregnancy), in the area of employment practices. CWRC also helped her apply successfully for EI sickness benefits, as health complications that developed while she was unemployed temporarily prevented her from seeking employment.

7) Lam, a 30 years old woman, was referred to the Calgary Workers' Resource Centre by another social service organization.  Lam quit her job due to on-going conflict with her supervisor and was denied Employment Insurance (EI) Benefits.  EI benefits are generally available only to individuals who lose their job due to no fault of their own.  Since Lam had quit her job voluntarily, she was declared not eligible for the EI benefits.

With a thorough understanding of the EI related legislation and the relevant systems, CWRC staff knew that under certain circumstances, people who voluntarily leave their jobs may qualify for the benefits.  After exploring the situation and extensively assessing the circumstances that led up to Lam’s decision to quit the job, CWRC staff found that many of the factors which make workers who voluntarily quit their jobs eligible for EI benefits were applicable in Lam’s situation.  Based on this information, CWRC helped the client to appeal the decision of the EI. 

CWRC represented the client at the hearing and argued that there was on-going animosity between Lam and her supervisor, and that the client was not primarily responsible for this.  Also, on one occasion, the client had spoken to the manager in order to address the situation but this did not result into any positive changes. Lam was also able to identify two incidents when she was treated differently from her co workers by her supervisor. 

Lam was also able to prove that she tried to find alternative solutions to the problem by, for example, applying for other jobs. CWRC staff asserted that since Lam did not speak English fluently, it was difficult for her to address her concerns directly with the person she was having conflict with. CWRC staff also requested that the members of the hearing panel consider the fact that vulnerable workers do not always have the tools to address and confront unfair workplace practices and that they should not be penalized for this. Based on the information presented, the members of the hearing panel decided that the EI benefits should be provided to Lam.  

8) Paul is a casual laborer, and a resident of one of the homeless shelters in Calgary.  He approached the Calgary Workers' Resource Centre in December 2005 with concerns around employment standards.  He worked for a contractor for 30.5 hrs at the rate of $17.5 per hour.  He was given $250 in advance, but his employer refused to pay him the remaining wages which totaled at $ 341.25 with overtime pay.  The argument given to him by his employer was that he has to show to the employer his time sheets indicating that he had worked these hours.  The client had lost his time sheets.

CWRC staff contacted the company that was contracting out its work to Paul’s employer, and found out that the employer had invoiced the company for all of Paul’s hours despite the fact they were refusing to pay the wages to Paul. When the CWRC contacted Paul’s employer, he was unwilling to pay Paul all his wages.  The employer was insisting that he had to see the time sheets before he could pay Paul.  After CWRC staff advocated on behalf of the client using the Employment Standards Code and the information retrieved from the company that was providing the contract, Paul was paid the full amount he had earned.      

9) Gina is a young immigrant woman of colour with language barriers.  She works for a nation-wide cleaning company’s local branch.  She was referred to the CWRC by the Women’s Centre of Calgary in November, 2005.  She had lost one of her pay cheques for $400 in August, and never received a cheque she was owed for about the same amount in October. 

Despite her ongoing efforts for more than 3 months, the cheques were never reissued.  Her immediate supervisor kept referring her to the local head office without any successful outcomes.  When she approached the head office, she was told that they would have to contact the main office in Toronto. 

The fact that Gina did not have strong English language skills was a significant barrier, and she could not effectively advocate on her own behalf.  CWRC staff  advocated on behalf of the client with the payroll personnel at the local office, and the cheque was issued within a week of this intervention by CWRC.