Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Boucher v. Walmart: Court of Appeal Confirms an Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Employment Contracts

by David Doorey May 28, 2014
written by David Doorey May 28, 2014

The Ontario Court of Appeal issued an interesting employment law decision last week that considered the ‘reprehensible’ conduct of Walmart and one of its managers in Windsor.  It dealt with an appeal by Walmart and the manager (Pinnock) of a huge jury award ordered against both parties.  The case is called Boucher v. Walmart Canada.
Quick Rundown of Facts
Boucher was a female assistant manager who was subjected to a pattern of verbal abuse at the hands of the manager for a extended period of time.  The abuse began after Boucher refused to falsify a log on the manager’s order.  From that point on, the manager engaged in a campaign to intimidate, humiliate, and abuse Boucher in the hopes that this would drive her to quit.  It did.  However, before she quit, she attempted to get help from Walmart.  She used their so-called “Open Door Policy”, which is supposed to permit employees to bring forward confidential concerns to

Court of Appeal:  Walmart's Behaviour was "Reprehensible"

Court of Appeal: Walmart’s Behaviour was “Reprehensible”


management.  Her request for a meeting was leaked to the manager, who then threatened her again for attempting to use the policy.  Despite ample evidence of the abuse, including other employee witnesses, Walmart remarkably concluded that Boucher was making up stories and threatened to discipline her for trying to undermine the abusive manager.  Unreal.  Boucher finally had enough, quit.  She had medical evidence indicating the abuse caused her serious though temporary medical harm.  She sued.
The jury was unimpressed.  It’s award is summarized by the Court of Appeal:

The jury found that Boucher had been constructively dismissed and awarded her damages equivalent to 20 weeks salary, as specified in her employment contract.  The jury also awarded her damages of $1,200,000 against Wal-Mart, made up of $200,000 in aggravated damages for the manner in which she was dismissed, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.  And the jury awarded Boucher damages of $250,000 against Pinnock, made up of $100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and $150,000 in punitive damages (awards for which Wal-Mart is vicariously liable as Pinnock’s employer).

The Court of Appeal’s Bottom Line Decision
Both the manager and Walmart appealed the jury’s ruling.   All aspects of the jury’s award were upheld by the Court of Appeal, except the amount of the punitive damages.  The punitive damages against the manager Pinnock were reduced from $150,000 to $10,000, and against Walmart from $1 million to $100,000, still a very large punitive damages award in an employment case.  The punitive damages were reduced on the basis that, given the large amount of damages awarded on the other heads of damages, the very high punitive damage awards were ‘not rationally required’ to further  punish Walmart and Pinnock.
The Court’s Treatment of Walmart’s Wrongful Actions
I want to say a few words about how the Court dealt with the claims against Walmart.  The actual abuse of the employee was committed by an employee, which the court ruled violated the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.   Walmart’s misconduct relates to its response to that abuse once it became aware of it.  Not only did Walmart not take actions to reign in and discipline the abusive manager, it actually took his side and allowed the abuse to continue.  The Court of Appeal summarized Walmart’s response as follows:

the evidence reasonably supports the jury’s finding that Wal-Mart’s own conduct was reprehensible.  That evidence, which I reviewed earlier, includes Wal-Mart’s refusal to take Boucher’s complaints about Pinnock seriously, its dismissal of those complaints as unsubstantiated despite substantial evidence to the contrary, its unwillingness to discipline Pinnock or intervene to stop his continuing mistreatment of Boucher, its threatened reprisal against her, and its contravention of its workplace policies.  Although Wal-Mart may not have deliberately sought Boucher’s resignation, on the evidence led at trial that the jury undoubtedly accepted, Wal-Mart’s actions and its inaction were reprehensible.

Walmart was guilty of breach of contract amounting to a constructive dismissal.  But what term of the contract did Walmart breach by it’s inaction in protecting Boucher from the abuse?
This question becomes important especially in the discussion of punitive damages, since a punitive damages award in a contract case requires ‘an independent actionable wrong’.  That is, Walmart’s ‘reprehensible’ conduct must constitute a legal wrong separate from the breach of the contract term requiring notice of termination (constructive dismissal).   That separate wrong cannot be the tort committed by the manager.  It has to be a legal wrong committed by Walmart for punitive damages to be awarded against Walmart.  The Court of Appeal finds that the trial judge erred by telling the jury that the tort committed by the manager could ground punitive damages against Walmart.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether Walmart had committed an independent actionable wrong, and it ruled that it did.  The Court ruled that the jury had actually found that Walmart breached an implied term of the contract.  Here’s what the Court said:

 In substance, [the jury] found that Wal-Mart breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing towards Boucher.  It committed an actionable wrong that would support an award of punitive damages.

Ah-Ha!
I would have relied on the implied term requiring employers to treat employees with ‘decency, civility, respect, and dignity’, the origins and implications of which I explained in this article from back in 2005.   In that article, I argued that employee counsel should develop this implied term and forgo the alternative approach accepted by the Court of Appeal in Shah v. Xerox Canada.  In Shah, the Court said that a constructive dismissal could result from abusive employer behaviour, even if no term is breached, if the employer’s conduct renders the employment relationship intolerable for the employee.  I noted then that the problem with the Shah approach is that it would restrict the option of employee’s arguing for punitive damages (and aggravated damages back in 2005, when an independent actionable wrong was also required for aggravated damages).  A separate contract term requiring decent treatment would enable employees to satisfy the independent actionable wrong requirement to recover these other damages.  This Walmart decision rephrases the implied term as the duty to treat employees “with good faith and fair dealing”, but it would seem to have the same meaning as the term described by lower courts as a duty to treat employees decently and with civility and respect.
Conclusion
This new Walmart decision clarifies that employment contracts include a implied term requiring employers to treat employees “with good faith and fair dealing”.   That term has great potential to apply to a broad range of employer behaviour, and is similar in tone if not content to the the very important British implied term requiring employers to act so as to preserve ‘mutual trust and confidence’.  That latter term has evolved to become the most important contract term governing employer behaviour in Britain (as I explain in my article).  We will have to watch developments in this area carefully.
 

5 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
It's Mostly Women Who Will Pay for Hudak's '100,000 Job Losses' Plan
next post
Postcards from Wisconsin: Is this the Future of Labor Law in Ontario if the Conservatives Win?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.