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

Can an Employee Quit, Encourage His Co-Workers to Join Him, and then Join a Competitor? RBC Securities v. Merrill Lynch

by David Doorey October 12, 2008
written by David Doorey October 12, 2008

Go to fullsize image The Supreme Court issued another employment law decision last week:  RBC Dominion Securities v. Merrill Lynch, et al.. It’s an interesting case of how courts mold and manipulate “implied terms” to suit to the outcome they perceive as warranted.  The facts are somewhat convoluted, but the main facts for the SCC case were the following.  Both RBC and Merrill Lynch had investment advising offices (you know, those people who advise you to buy more Northern Telecom and bank stocks!) in tiny Cranbrook, B.C.   The manager of ML met with a senior investment advisor of RBC (Delamont), and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse to quit RBC and cross the street to join ML.  Delamont went back to RBC, told his coworkers he was planning on moving to ML and told them they might want to do the same.  He also arranged a meeting of the advisors with a rep of ML.  Then one day, Delamont and most of the other investment advisors quit RBC and joined ML.  Almost all of the clients of RBC followed the investment advisors to ML.  This was in large part due to the fact that the investment advisors had sent client information to ML before they quit, and had sent letters to the clients directly telling them about the move from RBC to ML.
None of the investment advisors gave RBC notice that they were quitting.  The implied duty to give reasonable notice in employment contracts apply to both employers and employees.  Here is a rare case of an employer alleging it suffered damages because the employees failed to give notice.  The Court ruled that two and half weeks notice should have been given, and assessed the damages suffered by RBC as a result of the failure of the employees to give notice as $40,000 for each employee. That was apparently the lost profits suffered by RBC during that two and half week period.   That order was not appealed, so the SCC did not deal with it.
The SCC did deal with the finding of the trial judge that former employees continue to owe their ex-employer a duty to not compete against it during the entire period of the reasonable notice.  The SCC rejected this conclusion, and ruled that: “an employee who has terminated employment is not prevented from competing with his or her employer during the notice period, and the employer is confined to damages for failure to give reasonable notice.”
The  decision relating to Delamont the senior investment advisor is a little more difficult to figure out. Like the other investment advisors, he was found to have breached the duty to give notice of termination and ordered to pay $40,000 in damages for that breach.  But the trial judge also ruled that Delamont had breached a separate implied duty of good faith to RBC.  For this, he was ordered to pay a whooping damage bill of nearly $1.5. million dollars!  Apparently, that amount was the estimated loss of profits for a period of 5 years (presumably that’s on top of the loss of profit amounts already accounted for for the breach of the notice term by the Delamont and all of the other advisors)–pretty good profits for a small little office in Cranbrook, don’t you think?  The SCC upheld the trial judge’s ruling on this point.
One interesting fact in the case was that RBC testified that it made a conscious strategic decision not to include a term in the employment contract with the investment advisors prohibiting them from competing with RBC if they leave (a non-compete clause), because it felt these clauses dissuade applicants.   So Delamont was free to compete against RBC all he wanted once he joined ML.  However, he was found to have committed a breach of his implied duty of good faith to his employer.
What did he do to breach that term?  Well, he spoke to ML about leaving RBC.  But employees speak to other potential employers all the time–in fact, doing so is encouraged by the free market model of employment, which assumes people will always move to the best job available.  And, of course, people are allowed to change jobs, and even to move to a competitor.  However, the court found that Delamont breach his contract when he actively encouraged the investment advisors to join ML, and when he failed to inform RBC that the mass quit was about to happen.  Since Delamont’s job included recruiting and retaining investment advisors, the court ruled that by encouraging most of the workforce to join a competitor, his breach of the duty of good faith was serious enough to pin on him five years worth of profits, according to the SCC.
So, if your job involves ‘retaining’ staff, be careful if you decide to suggest to them that there may be greener pastures elsewhere.  
The facts of the case may be unusual enough that the case will not prove to be a significant moment in Canadian employment law.  It’s hard not to notice, though, that what Delamont and the advisors did could probably have been achieved without any breach of contract, and relatively easily.   Delamont could have given 2.5 week’s notice that he was leaving RBC and joining ML.  RBC then (probably) would have told him to leave immediately.  He would then have crossed the street to ML, with most of his clients following him, as they are entitled to do.   He then could have advertised that he was hiring investment advisors for ML.  The RBC advisors could all then have quit RBC and moved to ML, probably taking many of their clients with them too.  Delamont’s main problem was recruiting the RBC advisors while he was still their manager at RBC, not leaving RBC and taking its clients with him.  That’s what makes it pretty odd, in my opinion, to saddle him with 5 years’ worth of lost profits.

0 comment
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
The Apology Act and Employment Law
next post
Religious Freedom, Human Rights, and Beards…again

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 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
2h

@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 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
2h

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 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923168Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

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.