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

Davies v. Fraser Collection: Is a Temporary Layoff of a Nonunion Employee a Constructive Dismissal?

by David Doorey November 13, 2008
written by David Doorey November 13, 2008

You are a Human Resources Manager of a company that has lost a major client.  As a result, you have decided that you need to downsize the payroll, and you announce to an employee that he is being ‘temporarily’ laid-off, with the hope that he will be recalled shortly.   Have you breached the employee’s employment contract?
A unionized employer usually can lay off employees, provided they select the ‘victims’ in the order required by the collective agreement.  But the right to layoff in a unionized environment usually flows from direct language in a management rights’ clause in a collective agreement.   In a non-union workplace, few employment contracts contain a right to lay-off workers.  And  courts have usually refused to find an ‘implied’ right of employers to lay-off.   As a result, as the B.C.  Supreme Court ruled recently in a case called Davies v.  Fraser Collection Services, an employer who temporarily lays-off a worker will usually be committing a fundamental breach of the employment contract.
This means that the employer can treat the layoff as a dismissal and sue for wrongful dismissal (constructive dismissal), which means that the employer will be required to pay the employee lost wages and benefits for the period of ‘reasonable notice’ that should have been given.   Davies did this successfully; the court found that the required period of notice was 6.5 months.
Duty to Mitigate Damages
But then Davies ran into an odd problem.  During the period of that 6.5 months, the employer’s business picked up and it offered Davies a recall to his former job.  Davies refused that offer, and instead collected unemployment insurance benefits.  As a result, the Court ruled that Davies had failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to accept a reasonable offer by the employer to work out the notice period.  The court reduced the award to 2 months notice to account for  Davies’ failure to mitigate his loss.
This reasoning falls on the heals of the recent Supreme Court decision in Evans v. Teamsters, Local 31, where the Court ruled that the duty of a dismissed employee to mitigate their damages may include an obligation to work out the notice period with the employer who had dismissed them.  (See Sara Slinn’s commentary on Evan’s here) The question in each case is whether the circumstances of the dismissal have destroyed the mutual trust and confidence required in employment contracts.  But it appears it is not up to the employee to decide if they have lost trust in the employer, it is rather an objective test of whether a reasonable employee would feel that trust and confidence has been destroyed.  The court will look for facts that suggest the employer’s behaviour was demeaning, hostile, or embarrassing to the employee.  A good faith layoff would not  normally fall into those categories.
Moral of the story: Employers subject to a constructive dismissal complaint may want to offer the employee the chance to work out the notice period if they still trust the employee to work properly and not be disruptive.  If the employee declines, the damages the employer must pay might be reduced.

4 comments
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
Striker Voices
next post
York Strike and the Politics and Spin of Interest Arbitration Offers

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

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

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Given how ineffective labor laws are in the USA, seems like a giant waste of money.

Just send Jen from HR down to tell all the employees they’ll be fired for unionizing. Poof. Organizing campaign over. Wait for the poultry damages to be ordered years later.

Dave Jamieson @jamieson

NEWS: Amazon spent more than $14.2 million on anti-union consultants last year, new Labor Department filings show.

I've never seen another company disclose spending anywhere close to that in a single year.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-spending-2022_n_6426fd1fe4b02a8d518e7010?dp

Reply on Twitter 1641983636256718848 Retweet on Twitter 1641983636256718848 1 Like on Twitter 1641983636256718848 4 Twitter 1641983636256718848
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
picketer Tim Lyons @picketer ·
8h

@TheLawofWork We’ve had indigenous and non indigenous athletes object to gas company logos here in Australia (male and female BTW) including our men’s Test Cricket Captain which is basically Prime Minister :)

Reply on Twitter 1641949807639142400 Retweet on Twitter 1641949807639142400 1 Like on Twitter 1641949807639142400 4 Twitter 1641949807639142400
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
8h

Yep.

Waiting for an @NHL player to refuse to wear corporate logos. Want to hear the @NHL announce that players have no personal choice when it comes to corporate logos.

Several teams promote gambling on their sweaters. Not one NHL player objects to gambling?

Trent @TrentonRB

@TheLawofWork @MapleLeafs Legendary rugby player Sonny Bill Williams did this in New Zealand. As a Muslim, it is against his faith to promote a bank which profits off of loans so he taped over the bank logos.

He later got his own custom jersey with his wife and daughters names on the collar instead

Reply on Twitter 1641947955186786305 Retweet on Twitter 1641947955186786305 8 Like on Twitter 1641947955186786305 30 Twitter 1641947955186786305
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
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • 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.