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

Solving the Mystery of the Waitress Who Was "Reinstated" for "Not Smiling Enough"

by David Doorey February 6, 2018
written by David Doorey February 6, 2018

A headline in the National Post today proclaims that a waitress fired for “not smiling enough” was reinstated “by court”.  Reminds me of a case I worked on in the 1990s when a  Walmart employee was disciplined for clapping off beat during the mandatory morning Walmart chant.

A Quebec Mystery Solved?

A Quebec Mystery Solved?


My employment law students should be raising a suspicious eyebrow over that headline.  It raises a potential employment law mystery:  How could a court reinstate a nonunion waitress with 6 months’ service who was terminated for not smiling enough?
Let’s try to unravel the mystery (input from Quebec employment law experts welcome!).
First some back story to flesh out the mystery.
“Courts” in Canada, even in Quebec, do not generally reinstate employees who have been terminated, even when the reason for termination is completely asinine.   There is a handful of common law decisions where courts have reinstated dismissed employees in unique circumstances, but those are exceedingly rare.  Courts generally do not enforce specific performance of an employment contract, meaning that they do not order employers to re-employ an employee after the contract has already been terminated.  Instead, courts order damages for breach of the employment contract, usually measured by the loss of wages and other amounts that the employee would have earned had the employer provided the employee with the legal required amount of notice of termination.   As a general rule, an employer can terminate an employment contract for any or no reason at all, provided they provide the employee with notice of termination.
However, exceptions exist.  One exception relates to unionized workplaces.  Unions invariably negotiate “just cause” for discipline and discharge clauses into collective agreements  and collective bargaining statutes confer authority on labour arbitrators to reinstate unionized employees terminated in contravention of those clauses.  So unionized employees do frequently get their jobs back when they are terminated without “just cause”.  But most waitresses are non union and the article makes no mention of a union.  So we can assume she is not covered by a collective agreement.
Another exception to the general rule that employers are not ordered to reinstate terminated employees in Canada relates to terminations that violate statutes.  As explained in Chapter 23 of The Law of Work, there are two types of statutes that provide for reinstatement of terminated employees.
The first type I describe as terminations contrary to public policy.   Lots of statutes prohibit employers from terminating employees for certain reasons deemed contrary to public policy.  Human rights statutes are an example, which prohibit termination based on certain discriminatory grounds, such as race, religion, gender, age and other “prohibited grounds”.  Since a termination based on discriminatory reasons is contrary to public policy, human rights tribunals are given authority to reinstate employees fired for discriminatory reasons.
Similarly, labour relations boards have authority to reinstate employees terminated for supporting unions.   And most employment-related statutes include anti-reprisal sections that prohibit employers from terminating employees who attempt to enforce their statutory rights and provide the remedy of reinstatement to enforce these provisions.
The second type of statutory protection prohibits employers from terminating employees without just or good cause (“unjust dismissal provisions”).  These provisions are the statutory rough equivalent of the unionized “just cause” protection, but they apply to non-union employees.   “Unjust Dismissal” provisions exist in only three Canadian jurisdictions:  the federal jurisdiction, Nova Scotia, and you guessed it:  Quebec.
Section 124 of Quebec’ Act Respecting Labour Standards prohibits employers from terminating employees with more than 2 years service without “good and sufficient cause” and Section 128 of the statute empowers the Labour Tribunal  to reinstate the employee.
When we read the National Post story closely though, it appears that this was not an “unfair dismissal” case at all, because the waitress had only been employed for 6 months. Section 124 does not apply to her.
Therefore, although the story does not make this clear, the decision must be one that falls into the category of “terminations contrary to public policy”—she was terminated as a reprisal for insisting on payment of back wages owed, contrary to Section 122 of an Act Respecting Labour Standards.   The Post article notes:  “Daunais filed a complaint to the tribunal, claiming she was fired after asking for back pay owed to her”.   That makes sense.   This was an anti-reprisal case, not a Section 124 unfair dismissal case.  I think.   The Tribunal (not a court) did not believe the employer’s argument that the employee was fired for having a bad attitude.  Rather, the Tribunal accept the employee’s argument that she was terminated for insisting the employer comply with the statutory rules regarding payment of wages.
Mystery solved?
Issue for Discussion
As noted in this post and more fully discussed in Chapter 23 of The Law of Work, only three Canadian jurisdictions include “unjust dismissal” provisions that require employers (in limited circumstances) to have a valid reason to fire an employee.  In all the jurisdictions, nonunion employers do not need to demonstrate any reason for terminating an employee.  They just need to provide notice of termination.
Do you think that the other Canadian provinces should follow the lead of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and the federal government and enact “unjust dismissal” provisions?
What are arguments for and against these provisions?
 
 

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
Random Drug & Alcohol Testing Struck Down at Teck Coal
next post
Guest Blog: Professor Emeritus Roy Adams on Protecting the Right of College Teachers to Strike

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·
1h

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 1556698559650603008Like on Twitter 15566985596506030084Twitter 1556698559650603008
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
1h

Remembering time I spoke at @SteelworkersCA conference. I joined International President Leo Gerard on an elevated platform stage.

Back leg of chair was off back of stage. Sat down and fell backyards off stage until Leo caught me, pulled me back up, muttering “fucking lawyers”

United Steelworkers #EverybodysUnion@SteelworkersCA

International President Tom Conway takes the stage for his keynote address 🔥🔥🔥 - a big welcome to the five thousand Steelworkers, together for the first time since the pandemic! #EverybodysUnion #1u 2

Reply on Twitter 1556696632082812929Retweet on Twitter 1556696632082812929Like on Twitter 15566966320828129293Twitter 1556696632082812929
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

Yes I’m sure they would like to repeal human rights legislation but enact a new Freedom Protection Act that protects ‘rights’ they want, like anti-vaxer rights.

Sean O'Donnell@SJOLegal

@TheLawofWork Given that the Ford Government has stymied the HRTO for years, I don't think this crowd will see any joy through that avenue.

Reply on Twitter 1556695655120347141Retweet on Twitter 15566956551203471411Like on Twitter 15566956551203471413Twitter 1556695655120347141
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.