The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Is an employment contract signed one day after Employee starts work enforceable?

by David Doorey October 9, 2009
written by David Doorey October 9, 2009

I’ve noted a few times before the dangers for an employer of allowing an employee to start working before they have signed a written employment contract.   Rejdak v. Fight Network Inc. is a great case that  deals with this problem.
Rejdak was offered a job by a manager of Fight Network in a phone call on a Friday night in which the parties agree to a start date, title, and salary.  On Monday, Rejdak quit his old job and reported for work with the Fight Network.  He worked all day Monday, and was given a written contract to sign that day.  He took it home, signed it, and returned it to the employer the next day.  It was a standard form employment contract used by the Fight Network.  The contract included a three month probationary period during which the employee could be dismissed without notice.
Redjak was dismissed within that three month period, and the employer argued, relying on the probationary period in the contract, that it did not need to give Redjak any notice.  Redjak sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming ‘reasonable notice’ entitlements.  He wins, because the employer made an all too common error–it allowed Redjak to start work before he had signed the written employment contract.
Redjak was already employed under an oral contract when he was given the written contract–albeit his oral contract was only 1 day old.  The oral contract did not include a probationary period, or say anything about notice of termination for that matter.  Therefore, he was entitled to ‘reasonable notice’ under that oral contract, since courts imply an obligation to give reasonable notice when an employment contract is silent on how much notice of termination is needed.
So when the employer introduced the written contract with the probationary period, it was really seeking to alter the existing verbal contract.  Redjak signed the new written contract, because, according to the court, he ‘had no choice’, but that doesn’t matter, because he did not receive any new consideration for the amendment.  An employment contract cannot be amended unless both sides receive something new in the amendment (new consideration must flow both ways).  Here the employer got a new benefit (a probationary period), but the employee got nothing new.
The employer argued there was new consideration in the form of a 2 week holiday provision and a benefits package.  But the court rejected that argument.  The holiday pay was simply what Redjak was entitled to anyways under the Employment Standards Act, and new consideration cannot come in the form of a promise to comply with a statute.  The benefits were provided to all Fight Network employees, so the Court rejected the argument of the employer that Redjak was not already receiving them under the oral contract.
In the result, the Court ruled that the written contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration to the employee.  Therefore, the oral contract applied, including the implied term requiring reasonable notice.  The Court set reasonable notice at 4 months, even though Redjak had been employed for less than 3 months and took into consideration that Redjak had quit a secure job to come to Fight Network.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Dismissal of NHL Ref for Union Activity?
next post
Another Human Rights Violator?: York University

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
32m

Contract Law folks:

Story: @KDTrey5 (Kevin Durant) demands 'fire coach Nash' or trade me! [Or else what? Durant will breach his own contract by not working? Unclear].

Could Nash argue tort of inducing breach of contract?

Could Nash/Nets argue tort of intimidation?

Discuss.

Shams Charania@ShamsCharania

In a meeting with Nets owner Joe Tsai, Kevin Durant reiterated his trade request and informed Tsai that Tsai needs to choose between Durant or the pairing of general manager Sean Marks and coach Steve Nash, sources say.

Story: https://theathletic.com/3485297/2022/08/08/kevin-durant-nets-trade-steve-nash/

Reply on Twitter 1556730963077521408Retweet on Twitter 1556730963077521408Like on Twitter 1556730963077521408Twitter 1556730963077521408
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
50m

This is not streamed I take it?

Not all of us get to hang out in L.A. 😀

Barry Eidlin@eidlin

Interrupting the fashion report to invite people to a discussion I’m moderating tomorrow (8/9) at noon at #ASA2022 on the future of collective bargaining in the US, feat. @veenadubal, Bill Gould & @JLotesta. Should be great!

Reply on Twitter 1556726348865015809Retweet on Twitter 1556726348865015809Like on Twitter 15567263488650158091Twitter 1556726348865015809
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
3h

Looks great!

I took an international labor law course at LSE/Kings College taught by Keith Ewing, Brian Bercusson, Aileen McColgan, and Paul Davies.

Incredible course. And so important.

Desiree LeClercq@LeclercqDesiree

Excited to teach my new #internationallaborlaw course critically considering how labor rights are designed & enforced. The class balances decolonial theory w/ practical experiences. My syllabus (with names redacted) below. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1556698559650603008Retweet on Twitter 15566985596506030081Like on Twitter 15566985596506030086Twitter 1556698559650603008
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.