Interpretation of the law for a family day
The obligations referred to in that provision relate to the custody, health or education of his/her child or the child of his/her spouse. Contrary to what prevailed before May 1, 2003, the child is no longer required to be a minor and the child of the employee's spouse is now included. The employee may also be absent due to the health of other members of the family, such as his or her spouse, father, mother, brother, sister or grandparent.
It should be noted that the absence permitted for a reason related to the state of health of the persons mentioned in this provision must be directly related to their state of health. For example, the father of an employee leaves on a trip and his state of health requires that a person accompany him. The employee could not justify an absence to accompany his father under section 79.7 ALS because, under these circumstances, the reason for the absence is a "displacement" and not an absence "because of the condition health ". On the other hand, it is clear that this provision would include an absence to accompany a close relative who has to travel to receive care and needs assistance.
This comes with 4 summaries of decisions:
Plourde c. Placement Monfer Inc.,  C.T. 32
The plaintive is without a spouse, and her daughter, suffering from a disease, must be hospitalized in another city. The lady does not have the choice of the dates of hospitalization, the medical transfer and the transport costs being covered by the CLSC.
In these circumstances, by informing her employer of her absence as soon as possible and by limiting the length of her leave to the days she is to go to the hospital, the plaintive has taken reasonable steps at her disposal to fulfill her obligations and To limit the duration of the leave.
Fortin v. Professional Duct Cleaners, D.T.E. 92T-1291 (C.T.)
The plaintive must demonstrate in the application of section 81.2 ALS that it has taken reasonable steps at its disposal to fulfill its obligations. In this case, the complainant's spouse was present at the home, and it was not shown that she was unable to care for the child. In addition, the complainant only attempted to notify his supervisor once and did not notify the client. The complainant did not therefore relieve himself of his obligation to notify the employer.
Fountain c. Food Services Laniel inc., D.T.E. 95T-593 (C.T.)
The plaintive is single parent, and it cannot reasonably be expected that the aunt of the child will be able to fulfill parental obligations. In addition, the complainant did everything to limit the length of the leave and correctly advised the employer of her absence. It therefore complies with the obligations imposed by Article 81.2 ALS.
Tardif v. 27359975 Quebec inc., D.T.E. 96T-419 (C.T.)
The plaintive, on learning that his/her daycare would be closed at Dollard's Day, communicated unsuccessfully with two of her friends to ask them to keep her children, her husband being unable to do so. She subsequently refused the services of a colleague as a guardian, for she had not known for a long time. It must therefore be concluded that the complainant has taken reasonable steps to have her children cared for by someone else.
As you can read, there are obligations for the employee. These leaves are not days of floating holidays.
Hopefully this will help members of Local 9554