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 (Sometimes) Confusing Interplay Between Contractual and Statutory Employment Obligations

by David Doorey June 6, 2011
written by David Doorey June 6, 2011

The interplay between employment standards legislation and the common law rules of contract law can be confusing.
For example, while the ESA clearly recognizes and condones temporary layoffs, the common law treats a temporary layoff as a constructive dismissal, unless the contract clearly grants the employer the right to layoff.   Employers who look to the ESA for guidance on how much notice of termination to give employees often find themselves  in breach of the employment contract, since common law contractual “reasonable notice” is usually considerable more than the minimums expressed in the legislation.  Complying with the ESA notice provisions doesn’t relieve an employer of its contractual duties to pay “reasonable notice” (unless of course the contract says that the employer only need give ESA notice).
The point is that there are a bunch of situations where an employer can be in compliance with the ESA, but still be in breach of their obligations under the employment contract and the common law rules that apply to those contracts.
On the other hand, sometimes employers who are in compliance with the employment contract and common law rules find themselves in violation of the ESA.   This can happen for example when an employer dismisses an employee alleging cause. Under the common law rules, an employer is relieved of the obligation to give “reasonable” or contractual notice to the employee if the employee has repudiated the contract–committed a serious violation.  This is known as summary dismissal in legal lingo.    Under the ESA, an employer is relieved of the obligation to give statutory notice of termination and to pay severance pay if the employee is:

guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.

That rule is buried in ESA Regulation 288/01, ss 2(1). I have discussed the meaning of “wilful misconduct” before, including in this entry about two cases involving employee insolence and insubordination.
The key here is that the ESA definition includes an intent component.  The misconduct or neglect must be “wilful”, whereas under the common law test for summary dismissal wilfulness is not a required component.  That means you can–and do–find cases in which an employer has cause under the contract to dismiss employee without notice, yet still be required under the ESA to give notice of termination and pay severance pay.
That is what happened in a recent case called Oosterbosch v. FAG Aerospace Inc. The employer dismissed the employee without cause after a series of performance problems, which themselves followed a series of earlier disciplinary sanctions imposed by the employer for lateness and performance.  The judge ruled that the employer had followed its progressive discipline policy and that there was sufficient documented poor performance issues and prior discipline to warrant a finding that there was cause for summary dismissal under the contract.  Therefore, the employer was not required to pay “reasonable notice” to the employee.
However, the Court rejected the employer’s argument that the performance problems leading to the dismissal were “wilful” within the meaning of the ESA Regulation.  Therefore, the employee was entitled to both notice of termination (8 weeks, amounting to $7,904) and severance pay ($17,127) under the ESA.
This case demonstrates a benefit to employees dismissed for alleged cause of bringing their claim for ESA entitlements by way of a lawsuit in court, since the employee can claim contractual notice (including “reasonable notice”) and statutory notice and severance in the same lawsuit.  The court can order statutory damages even if no contractual notice was required.  If the employee proceeds by bringing an ESA complaint for notice and severance, she can not recover contractual notice from an ESA adjudicator and cannot later sue for those damages (see section 97(2) of the ESA).   Of course, the downside of proceeding by way of a lawsuit is the cost and time:  actions in court usually cost was more since the employee will probably use a lawyer, whereas lawyers are not as necessary in an ESA complaint.
Do you think the system is wrong by allowing an employee to recover ESA notice and severance pay even though the Employer was within its contractual rights to dismiss the employee for cause without 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
Nurses Awarded Nice Raise in Interest Arbitration Award
next post
I Told You: Canada Post Begins Partial Lockout

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.