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

Stowar v. Telehop: HR Mistakes Can Prove Costly

by David Doorey September 2, 2009
written by David Doorey September 2, 2009

A while ago, I did a post discussing an attempt by Microsoft to recover money it claimed it mistakenly ‘overpaid’ employees when they were fired.  I noted that if the amount paid is in the range of what the common law ‘reasonable notice’ would provide, I couldn’t see any reason why the employee would have to pay it back, since the employee would be entitled to take the position that the payment was satisfaction for the employer’s legal duty to pay notice upon termination.  
A similar issue arose in the recent Ontario decision in Stowar v. Telehop Communications .  This case shows how simple mistakes by human resource managers can prove costly to the company, and embarrassing to the HR Manager.  In Stowar, the employer decided to dismiss the employee, and provided her with a letter that stated the employer would pay her 5 months’ salary “as per [the employer’s] obligations under the Employment Standards Act”.  My employment law students would recognize immediately that 5 months’ pay is way more than the ESA requires for any employee.  In fact, she was only entitled to 3 weeks pay under the ESA, having been employed just over 3 years.  The employee smartly signed the document as requested by the HR manager.
A couple of days later, the HR manager realized the mistake, told the employee an error had been made, and asked her to sign a new letter providing for only 3 week’s pay.  The employee refused to sign, and told the employer she wanted the original 5 months.  When the employer refused to pay, the employee sued for breach of the document that required the employer to pay 5 month’s pay.  She won.
The Court ruled that the original letter including the promise to pay 5 months’ pay was like an amendment to the employment contract and enforceable as a contract.  The employee was entitled to assume that the offer was made in consideration of all entitlements the employee might otherwise be entitled to under both the common law and the ESA.   Since there was an offer, an acceptance, and mutual consideration involved here, this was an enforceable contract.  In addition, since the  employer had offered to pay a lump sum payment of $5000 at the time of dismissal, the court ordered the entire amount be paid, even though the employee had obtained another job shortly after her dismissal.  In other words, the employer was not entitled to benefit from the employee’s mitigation of her damages.
Note an underlying theme here, one I have raised before.  The ESA only sets out the minimum amount of notice that is required to be given to an employee when their contract is being terminated.  If the contract does not include a term specifying how much notice must be given, then the courts imply a term requiring ‘reasonable’ notice.  In that case, the employer is contractually required to provide reasonable notice, which is often longer than the ESA minimum, sometimes considerably so.  In other words, an employer who provides only ESA minimum notice, when it is required to pay more than that as ‘reasonable notice’, is breaching the contract.  I have raised the issue before about whether it is unethical to knowingly pay an employee less than ‘reasonable notice’ in the hope that the employee will not bother suing for breach of contract.   The employer in Telehop seemed to believe that it was only legally required to pay ESA minimum notice, when in fact it was legally required to pay the employee ‘reasonable notice’, which in this case, could have been in the 5 month range.  That’s why courts will have little sympathy for employers who claim they only ‘intended’ to pay ESA minimum notice.

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
A Modern Day "Yellow Dog" Contract at Regis Corp.
next post
Is a 'stripper' an 'employee' or an 'independent contractor'?

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 ·
1h

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
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
  • 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.