Soumission

Good afternoon:

My name is Kathy Crawford and I am Vice President of ATU Local 1602 in St. Catharines employed by Laidlaw Transit. Recently, through the loss of my brother I discovered what I perceive as a 'flaw' in the present definition of Immediate Family as outlined in the Labour Code which I have pasted below.

Definition of Immediate family:

• Employee's spouse or common-law partner;
• Employee's father and mother and the spouse of employee's father and mother (including common-law partner;
• Child of employee or of employee's spouse;
• Employee's grandchild;
• Employee's brothers and sisters, grandparent;
• Employee's Parent-in-law (including common-law partner);
• Any relative residing permanently with an employee.

My concern is that the code clearly states common-law partner for bullets 1, 2 and 6 but does not state common-law for any of the other family members. My partner and I have been living together for 10 years now and when my brother passed on, according to how the code is presently written, my partner was not entitled to receive bereavement pay due to bullet 6. Due to the compassion of my employer in this instance, albeit, after several weeks of argument, my spouse was paid for his lost time however, not all employers would be this compliant. I find it hard to understand how certain family members can be 'overlooked' or not included in the definition of immediate family. I feel this oversight should be addressed and that the entire definition of Immediate family be rewritten to include common-law partner on all 7 bullets.

Respectfully,

Kathy Crawford UE