4 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall dismiss or discipline an employee because the employee was, on any day during the period beginning on October 27 and ending on November 7, 1997, unable to perform some or all of his or her duties because the employee was engaged in caring for his or her eligible child (within the meaning of subsection 3 (1)) because of a circumstance described in clause 3 (2) (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e).  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (1). Prohibition (2) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall dismiss or discipline an employee because the employee requested permission to be absent from work or to restrict his or her duties in order to care for an eligible child in the circumstances and during the period described in subsection (1).  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (2). Prohibition (3) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall dismiss or discipline an employee because he or she seeks to enforce this Act.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (3). Same (4) A complaint under this section may be made in respect of an action taken either before or after this Act comes into force.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (4). Restriction (5) Subsection (1) applies only if the employee notified the employer in advance that he or she would be unable to perform some or all of his or her duties.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (5). Same (6) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a teacher who, on the applicable day, was participating in the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (6). Salary (7) Subsection (1) shall not be interpreted to require an employer to pay salary to an employee in respect of time during which the employee was absent from work.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (7). Evidence (8) An employer may require an employee to provide evidence that the circumstances described in subsection (1) existed on the applicable day and that the employee’s inability to perform some or all of his or her duties was caused by those circumstances; the employer may also make reasonable inquiries respecting those matters.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (8). Burden of proof (9) The onus is on the employee to prove that subsection (6) does not apply with respect to his or her complaint.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (9). Collective agreement (10) If the employer has entered into or is bound by the terms of a collective agreement with respect to an employee, subsections (1), (2) and (3) are enforceable as if they were terms of the collective agreement, (a) if the contravention of the applicable subsection is alleged to have occurred when the collective agreement is in force; or (b) if the contravention of the applicable subsection is alleged to have occurred when the terms of the collective agreement apply.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (10). No collective agreement (11) If subsection (10) does not apply, an employee may file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board that subsection (1), (2) or (3) has been contravened, and the Board shall determine the matter.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (11). Jurisdiction (12) The Ontario Labour Relations Board has jurisdiction to determine a complaint by a Crown employee that the Crown has contravened subsection (1), (2) or (3).  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (12). Burden of proof, complaint (13) If a complaint that subsection (1) has been contravened is filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the onus is on the employee to prove that his or her inability to perform some or all of his or her duties resulted from the circumstances described in subsection (1).  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (13). Same (14) Once the employee proves the matters required by subsection (13), the onus is on the employer to prove that he, she or it did not dismiss or discipline the employee for the prohibited reason.  1997, c. 32, s. 4 (14).