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

The Origins of the Requirement to Give "Reasonable Notice" to Terminate an Employment Contract

by David Doorey October 9, 2012
written by David Doorey October 9, 2012

Ever wonder where the requirement to provide reasonable notice to terminate an employment contract comes from?  The answer might surprise you.
The answer has a lot of to do with historical leftovers from the bygone era of Master and Servant Law, and from a desire by judges to reserve for themselves tools to prevent workers from acting collectively through unions.   Here’s the Coles notes version–(Do students today even know what Coles notes are?)  My colleague Brian Etherington from Windsor Law has recounted the story in more detail in an article from 1990 in the McGill Law Journal (“The Enforcement of Harsh Termination Provisions in Personal Employment Contracts” (1990)35 McGill LJ 459).
The History of Reasonable Notice in Employment Law
A common concern in early employment contract law was ensuring agricultural employers had sufficient labour to complete the harvest.  Labour scarcity was of great concern to employers.  For that reason, an implied term developed wherby contracts of employment were presumed to last at least one year.  Consequently, employees who quit prior to the end of the contract were in breach of contract, and the sanction for many years (until 1875) for such a breach could include imprisonment.  This created a strong incentive for workers to complete their full contract term. 
On the other hand, a one year contract also encouraged employers to pay workers through the agricultural off season, so that those workers did not become a financial and social burden to their village or local ‘parish’, which would end up sustaining workers who lacked employment income.  With these concerns in mind–labour scarcity and poor relief–judges thought it reasonable to require one year contracts terminable only by providing the other party with notice of a length equal to the period remaining on the contract.  To this day, a fixed term contract is usually terminable only by giving notice equal to the remainder of the fixed period.
By the mid to late 19th century, the industrial workplace had become more prominent.  Large numbers of workers had left the farms for employment in industrial occupations.  The concerns about labour shortages at harvest time did not transfer to the industrial sector, yet judges continued to apply the presumption of yearly employment contracts terminable only by notice to industrial workplaces too.  Later, courts dropped the one year presumption in industrial employment contracts and began to treat the contracts as indefinite term, unless stated otherwise.  

But why did British/Canadian common law judges opt for an implied term requiring ‘reasonable notice’ to terminate an indefinite contract, whereas the Americans opted for ‘at will’ contracts that terminate and then renew every second? 

The answer is that British/Canadian employers did not want ‘at will’ contracts, because that would permit employees to walk

"Reasonable Notice" Created to Impede Strikes


out at any moment as a show of collective strength.  Indeed, British trade unions were encouraging workers to sign ‘minute contracts’, so that they could strike at any time without being in breach of their contract.  Employers, on the other hand, needed contracts to be longer and terminable only with notice in order to impede collective worker action.  Recall that breaching the notice provision could land an employee in prison for much of the 19th century.  But perhaps even more importantly, if a contract required an employee and employer to provide notice to terminate a contract, any attempt by a trade union to encourage workers to stop working (to strike) prior to the completion of the notice period would amount to a criminal or tortious conspiracy to induce a breach of contract (between employee and employer), thus allowing judges to intervene and declare a collective work stoppage unlawful, and union organizers unlawful conspirators.

Etherington summed out the origins of ‘reasonable notice’ as follows:  “…most employers did not want employment at will or minute contracts. They usually hired employees on weekly, biweekly, or monthly pay periods and the courts often implied reasonable notice periods which corresponded to the pay period.  The notion of at will terminability was not sought by employers, nor was it implied by courts in the face of silence, because the requirement for some period of reasonable notice, albeit in most cases a very short period for industrial workers, was vital in enabling employers to obtain judicial assistance to stem collective action by workers.

The ability of common law judges to ‘imply’ contract terms’ gave the judges a way to prevent strikes.  This requirement for both sides to provide reasonable notice to terminate the employment contract has survived in the common law to this day, even though we have long had extensive labour legislation that governs the rights of workers to unionize and engage in strikes.  The length of reasonable notice has expanded over the years, following criteria laid down in the famous 1960 decision in Bardal v. Globe and Mail.
Nonunion employees who today suddenly walk off the job in protest are still in violation of the notice requirements of their employment contract, and although we don’t throw employees in jail anymore, those workers could lose their job and be ordered to pay damages to the employer. However, today, we usually think of the requirement to provide reasonable notice to terminate an employment contract as a court created employee benefit.  But this short history lesson suggests its early motivations were less about protecting workers from sudden unemployment, and mostly about protecting employers and quashing unions and collective bargaining.
Discussion

Does learning this history alter your opinion of the modern day requirement for reasonable notice to terminate an employment contract?

Do you think our governments should abolish the requirement for reasonable notice, given that the policy concerns that it was intended to address have mostly been usurped by legislation?

2 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
The Right to Indemnity in Employment Contracts
next post
Love this New Animated Ed Broadbent Message About Income Inequality

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

Sounds like @elonmusk is working towards making Twitter utterly useless unless you buy his stupid blue checkmark.

Reply on Twitter 1640826019140517888 Retweet on Twitter 1640826019140517888 Like on Twitter 1640826019140517888 1 Twitter 1640826019140517888
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
peterframpton Peter Frampton @peterframpton ·
27 Mar

I have posted this before but ..

26 years ago, a gunman entered
Dunblane Primary School in Scotland,
killing 16 kids and a teacher. The UK
govt responded by enacting tight gun
control legislation. In the 9400+ days
since, there have been a total of O
school shootings in the UK.

Reply on Twitter 1640422829442121743 Retweet on Twitter 1640422829442121743 54627 Like on Twitter 1640422829442121743 199460 Twitter 1640422829442121743
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
22h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 238 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 686 Twitter 1640509028567506950
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.