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

Russo v. Kerr Bros.: What Happens When an Employee Who is Constructively Dismissed Keeps Working?

by David Doorey November 24, 2010
written by David Doorey November 24, 2010

Thanks to one of my LLM students (Andrew Langille, who has his own very interesting blog called Youth and Work) for passing along word of an interesting recent decision from Ontario called Russo v. Kerr Bros. Here is the decision.
The employer unilaterally cut the employee’s pay, apparently due to financial difficulties being experienced by the company.  The cut took the compensation from about $114,000 to about $60,000. There is no doubt that the pay cut was large enough to constitute a constructive dismissal.
Usually employees respond to that sort of change by quitting, and then sometimes suing for constructive dismissal.   The twist in this case was that the employee did not quit.  Instead, the employee’s lawyer told the employer very clearly that the employee does not accept the pay cut, and that the pay cut amounts to a constructive dismissal.  However, the employee kept coming to work under the reduced compensation.  The employer acted as if that meant the employee accepted the changed contract.  However, the employee then sued for constructive dismissal–while he continued to work for the employer!
He argued that he had been constructively dismissed when his pay was unilaterally cut by the employer, but he had continued to work (under the new reduced pay scheme) as part of his “duty to mitigate” his losses.  This is turning Evans v, Teamsters on its head—in that case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that an employee has a duty to mitigate her losses by continuing to work for the employer who has fired her, if the employer so requests.  Here, the employee said, metaphorically, “just following the Supreme Court’s instructions”.
The employer argued that by continuing to work under the reduced compensation scheme, the employee had consented to the employer’s unilateral revision of the contract.
(Query for employment law students:  Was there any new consideration given to the employee, even assuming he had “accepted” the revision?  i.e.  even if the employee had “accepted” the change, would that change have been enforceable considering the requirement to give the employee new consideration in exchange for axing his pay?)
The Court found in favour of the employee.  The employee had clearly informed the employer that he did not accept the change to his contract and that if the employer cut his pay, it would amount to a constructive dismissal.  Yet the employer did this anyhow.  Here is what the Court said:

Once the [employer] had been told that the plaintiff accepted that a constructive dismissal occurred, and that he did not accept the new terms and conditions, the [employer] could have told the plaintiff to leave the workplace.  Alternatively, the [employer] could have kept the old terms and conditions in place for the period of reasonable  notice.  However, the employer did neither.  It simply allowed the plaintiff to remain in the workplace knowing that the plaintiff took the position that he had been constructively dismissed, and that he did not accept the new terms.

In the end, the employee is entitled to remain in the workplace after he is constructively dismissed, as a means of mitigating his loss, for the entire period of reasonable notice.  The employer can tell him to get lost, of course, but they would have to pay out the reasonable notice damages to do so.
One of the great things about this case is that the decision was rendered while the notice period was still in effect and the employee was still at work!  The notice period was set at 22 months, which won’t expire until February 2011.  So the court ordered the employer to pay the damages for the period since his pay was cut to the date of the decision, and then the parties are to assess what other damages are owing up to Feb. 2011 once that time comes.
Like Wronko v. Western Inventory, this case emphasizes the need for Employers and HRM professionals to understand the intricacies of employment law, lest they be punished in the courts.

3 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
Ontario Violates International Human Rights Laws… Again.
next post
Roy Adams on the Fraser Case and the Recent ILO Decision Finding Against the Province of Ontario

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·
23m

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·
42m

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.