Follow Me on Twitter

Wronko v. Western Inventory: When can an employer amend the terms of an employment contract?

You are an H.R. manager and you learn that one of your senior officials has a term in his employment contract that you don’t like, say, a requirement to give 2 years’ notice of termination.  You would like to be able to turf the guy with less notice than that.  So you ask him to sign a new contract that requires only 30 weeks’ notice of termination.  The employee tells you to take a hike, and insists on the original contract.   Now what can you do if you are the employer?

contractLabour law students should know the answer, because this is Hill v. Gorman all over again, one of my favorite cases to teach.  In Hill,  the employer began withholding 10 percent of an employee’s commissions to cover bad debts, but the employee objected.  The right to withhold was not in the employment contract, so amounted to a breach of contract by the employer.  The employee continued to work, but never agreed to the withholding practice.  When the employee later quit, he sued successfully to recover all of the withheld money.   The moral of the storyan employer cannot unilaterally amend a significant term of the employment contract without the employee’s agreement.

What then can an employer do if it wants to change terms of an employment contract and the employee won’t agree? The Court in Hill told us the answer:  it must serve proper notice of termination of the contract, and when the notice is up, offer the employee a new contract with the revised terms.  Easy, right?

So what happened in the recent OCA case, Wronko v. Western Inventory?  When the employee refused to accept the revised notice term of 30 weeks (instead of 2 years), the employer served 2 years’ notice of its unilateral revision of the notice term.   That’s different then giving 2 years’ notice of termination of the contract in its entirety.   The employee told the employer it would not agree to that change, even after the two years was up.  But the employer simply waited 2 years, and then told the employee that if he did not accept the new term (3o weeks’ notice) then “we do not have a job for you”.  The employee treated that as a dismissal, and sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the 2 years’ pay as per the original term of the contract.

He won.  The OCA relied on Hill, and provided a nice restatement of the law answering the question, what can an employee do if her employer changes a fundamental term of the employment contract without her consent:

[34]First, the employee may accept the change in the terms of employment, either expressly or implicitly through apparent acquiescence, in which case the employment will continue under the altered terms.

[35]Second, the employee may reject the change and sue for damages if the employer persists in treating the relationship as subject to the varied term.  This course of action would now be termed a “constructive dismissal”, as discussed in Farber, although this term was not in use when Hill was decided.

[36]          Third, the employee may make it clear to the employer that he or she is rejecting the new term.  The employer may respond to this rejection by terminating the employee with proper notice and offering re-employment on the new terms.  If the employer does not take this course and permits the employee to continue to fulfill his or her job requirements, then the employee is entitled to insist on adherence to the terms of the original contract.  In other words, if the employer permits the employee to discharge his obligations under the original employment contract, then – unless proper notice of termination is given – the employer is regarded as acquiescing to the employee’s position.  As Mackay J.A. so aptly put it: “I cannot agree that an employer has any unilateral right to change a contract or that by attempting to make such a change he can force an employee to either accept it or quit.”

So all the employer had to do in Wronko was provide notice of termination, and not notice of a change in the notice term.   That was costly mistake that I know none of my students would make ;)


3 Responses to Wronko v. Western Inventory: When can an employer amend the terms of an employment contract?

  1. Chris

    December 14, 2018 at 4:46 am

    I’ve just discovered this website and made sure to bookmark it! I am a third year law student at Western University in London, ON.

    This is an issue that confuses me; no matter how many cases I read on the topic, I constantly see obiter that makes me think I am misreading the decisions.

    My understanding of the topic of changing terms in the contract is that fresh consideration is always required. But then I see something like para 34 in this decision that makes me question whether or not fresh consideration is actually required. That is, what if the employee just continues working under the new terms? Does the obiter here suggest that the employee is then bound by those new terms despite the fact that no fresh consideration was given?

    Thanks for these blogs. I will certainly make use of them as I continue learning about employment law!

  2. Harvey

    January 4, 2019 at 11:22 pm

    Thanks Chris for your comments. I am also curious to know if the employer makes changes to an annual compensation sales contract and the employee does not reject or accept but just goes on doing the job under the new plan, is he ultimately accepting the new plan ?

  3. Andre

    March 8, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    Hi guys,

    Braiden v. La-Z-Boy clarifies: when there’s uneven bargaining power (the vast majority of employment contracts), acceptance, consideration AND proof of understanding of rights forfeited are required.

    It should be noted that the doctrines of consideration and “meeting of the minds” are distinct legal conventions, as evidenced by the fact a seal can replace consideration in some instances. Some authorities even suggest that consensus ad idem renders consideration redundant…

You must be logged in to post a comment Login