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

Q&A: Should we Replace Common Law "Reasonable Notice" with Fixed (Higher) Statutory Notice of Termination?

by David Doorey June 29, 2011
written by David Doorey June 29, 2011

Welcome to the Q&A File, a new Feature at Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog.  From the mailbag, I open with a question from York student Stuart:

The Q:
Good afternoon Professor Doorey,

I am an accounting student at york and I read your blog a couple of times a week; I find it extremely interesting, and useful for finding relevant topics to debate with other students and friends.  Recently we were discussing the ESA, and the rights prescribed under it, when someone asked ” Why not get rid of common law notice and increase the minimum standard under the ESA ? ” If its not to much trouble could you please discuss on your blog.
Thank you.
The A:

Hi Stuart, the question you raise is a subject of ongoing debate.  It would be easy to do what you suggest. All we need do is amend the ESA to include language saying that the notice of termination section in the ESA is a deemed term of every employment contract unless the parties agree in writing to a higher amount of notice, and to be clear, that the deemed term replaces any common law implied right to notice of termination.
Should we do that?
YES!
Since the common law notice requirement is mostly for the benefit of employees who have the means, knowledge, and courage to hire lawyers and sue their ex-employer, there is an argument that few would miss it if it was supplanted by a new, elevated statutory notice and that overall, employees would benefit from that change.  Employers would benefit too, at least in terms of certainty and less civil litigation.  In practice,  common law “reasonable notice”  is mostly a tool for privileged workers–high level managers and executives–while most workers have only the ESA to protect them, if that.
As I have noted before on this blog (here and here ), some employers ignore the “reasonable notice” requirement in any event and just pay ESA notice or slightly above.  Plus, an employer can always avoid “reasonable notice” by simply including a term in the employment contract that says only statutory notice is required, so it is already a tenuous right for employees.    By abolishing “reasonable notice”, we would cut down on the use of courts for employment matters, freeing up judges to deal with the real important matters–like bankruptcies, divorces, shareholder actions, and slip-and-fall cases.
These are all reasons to justify the argument you make.
NO!
On the other hand, there are arguments against your proposal. One is that the common law model takes into account a greater number of factors beyond length of service, and that can make for a more flexible, fair, and responsive approach overall.
Another is that the common law model sometimes scores victories for employees.  In recent years, common law judges have occasionally  held employers to account for their mistreatment of employees.  This takes the form of increased damages award, such as through the Wallace, now Honda process for punishing employers for “bad faith in the manner of dismissal”, or the new “ancillary damages” approach just applied in the Cuba v. Global Egg Corp case. Judges have also been developing the concept of an “implied duty of decent and civil treatment of employees” by employers, to give another example.
These interpretations of employment contracts can be useful to employees overall, and can signal to employers the need to treat employees with respect and fairness.  These rules tend to emerge from lawsuits brought primarily to recover common law reasonable notice damages.  So if we move away from “wrongful dismissal” cases and towards a purely statutory model, employees may lose out on progressive developments that are occasionally crafted by judges.
Another problem with moving to a purely statutory model is that the rules of notice would then be subject to political whims and trends.  An NDP government might increase the amounts, only to see a Conservative government cut them right down to almost nothing.   Who knows, perhaps we could drawn into a debate about whether we should be moving towards the American “at will” model, under which employees can be dismissed at any time, for any (or no) reason, without any notice. In labour law, we have heard the argument many times before that our workplace laws need to move down to the American standards in order to compete.
True, the amounts in the current Ontario ESA have been fixed for some time, through governments formed by all three political parties. But the existing amounts are so low that hardly anyone pays any attention.  If we start jacking up the periods of notice, then it could become a political hot button issue, like we have seen with the union certification process in recent years.  At least the Bardal v. Globe and Mail factors courts use in deciding how much notice is reasonable have been in place for decades, even if their application is uncertain from case to case.  Once we abolish the common law model, the statutory model may become more prone to the prevailing political winds.
These are just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head.  There are others.  So I open up the question to the community.
Should we abolish the common law “reasonable notice” rules and rely exclusively on statutory minimum notice periods?
 

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
Postal Union to Challenge Back-to-Work Law
next post
Is the NBA Lockout Illegal in Canada?

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 ·
8h

Interested in your comment that you don’t have rules. I’d think that submitting an essay written by a machine without citing the machine is just straight up plagiarism.

My view is that any text not written by yourself needs to be fully cited.

Andres Guadamuz @technollama

@shahaoul @glynmoody Indeed. As we don't have rules, we can only mark what's in front of us. I can imagine some students using it judiciously, to get a technical definition for example, but in other cases the result can be an incoherent unstructured essay. So we mark it as that.

Reply on Twitter 1619691956413808640 Retweet on Twitter 1619691956413808640 2 Like on Twitter 1619691956413808640 22 Twitter 1619691956413808640
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
17h

McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly and job-destroying' https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-president-who-made-dollar74-million-last-year-says-proposal-to-pay-fast-food-workers-dollar22-an-hour-is-costly-and-job-destroying/ar-AA16Mc7D?ocid=a2hs&li=BBnb7Kz

Reply on Twitter 1619548631421562880 Retweet on Twitter 1619548631421562880 16 Like on Twitter 1619548631421562880 47 Twitter 1619548631421562880
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
18h

Google axes thousands of jobs while rolling in cash on orders from Wall Street pencil pushers. Pretty obvious where public anger should be directed.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/01/28/dont-do-evil-massive-layoffs-at-google-shine-a-light-on-tech-giants-ugly-side.html

Reply on Twitter 1619544883609407488 Retweet on Twitter 1619544883609407488 7 Like on Twitter 1619544883609407488 9 Twitter 1619544883609407488
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.