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

Wronko v. Western Inventory: When can an employer amend the terms of an employment contract?

by David Doorey July 22, 2008
written by David Doorey July 22, 2008

You are an H.R. manager and you learn that one of your senior officials has a term in his employment contract that you don’t like, say, a requirement to give 2 years’ notice of termination.  You would like to be able to turf the guy with less notice than that.  So you ask him to sign a new contract that requires only 30 weeks’ notice of termination.  The employee tells you to take a hike, and insists on the original contract.   Now what can you do if you are the employer?
contractLabour law students should know the answer, because this is Hill v. Gorman all over again, one of my favorite cases to teach.  In Hill,  the employer began withholding 10 percent of an employee’s commissions to cover bad debts, but the employee objected.  The right to withhold was not in the employment contract, so amounted to a breach of contract by the employer.  The employee continued to work, but never agreed to the withholding practice.  When the employee later quit, he sued successfully to recover all of the withheld money.   The moral of the story:  an employer cannot unilaterally amend a significant term of the employment contract without the employee’s agreement.
What then can an employer do if it wants to change terms of an employment contract and the employee won’t agree? The Court in Hill told us the answer:  it must serve proper notice of termination of the contract, and when the notice is up, offer the employee a new contract with the revised terms.  Easy, right?
So what happened in the recent OCA case, Wronko v. Western Inventory?  When the employee refused to accept the revised notice term of 30 weeks (instead of 2 years), the employer served 2 years’ notice of its unilateral revision of the notice term.   That’s different then giving 2 years’ notice of termination of the contract in its entirety.   The employee told the employer it would not agree to that change, even after the two years was up.  But the employer simply waited 2 years, and then told the employee that if he did not accept the new term (3o weeks’ notice) then “we do not have a job for you”.  The employee treated that as a dismissal, and sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the 2 years’ pay as per the original term of the contract.
He won.  The OCA relied on Hill, and provided a nice restatement of the law answering the question, what can an employee do if her employer changes a fundamental term of the employment contract without her consent:

[34]First, the employee may accept the change in the terms of employment, either expressly or implicitly through apparent acquiescence, in which case the employment will continue under the altered terms.

[35]Second, the employee may reject the change and sue for damages if the employer persists in treating the relationship as subject to the varied term.  This course of action would now be termed a “constructive dismissal”, as discussed in Farber, although this term was not in use when Hill was decided.

[36]          Third, the employee may make it clear to the employer that he or she is rejecting the new term.  The employer may respond to this rejection by terminating the employee with proper notice and offering re-employment on the new terms.  If the employer does not take this course and permits the employee to continue to fulfill his or her job requirements, then the employee is entitled to insist on adherence to the terms of the original contract.  In other words, if the employer permits the employee to discharge his obligations under the original employment contract, then – unless proper notice of termination is given – the employer is regarded as acquiescing to the employee’s position.  As Mackay J.A. so aptly put it: “I cannot agree that an employer has any unilateral right to change a contract or that by attempting to make such a change he can force an employee to either accept it or quit.”

So all the employer had to do in Wronko was provide notice of termination, and not notice of a change in the notice term.   That was costly mistake that I know none of my students would make 😉

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
Feds Discriminate Against Women 'Term' Workers
next post
Real Pleadings: Fraser v. Ontario (the agricultural workers' Charter Challenge)

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 ·
34m

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 4 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

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
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
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.