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
Common Law of EmploymentComparative Work LawLabour ArbitrationUnited States

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds for Dismissal Without Notice?

by David Doorey January 8, 2021
written by David Doorey January 8, 2021

Written by David Doorey, York University

Here’s a fun post to open another term of Employment Law. Trump crazies stormed the Capital this week. Most of them didn’t wear masks so they will soon have COVID. And many of them won’t have health insurance because they won’t have jobs. As this story explains, employers are looking at the photos — the geniuses posed for the cameras — and are starting to terminate their employees.

In the US, where most jobs are “at will”, the legal issues are pretty straightforward. Employees have no protection from termination for off-duty conduct. Employers can dismiss employees for any or no reason at all with no notice.

I want to talk about Canadian law. Let’s assume that a bunch of yahoos from Canada storm into the House of Commons in Ottawa, smashing stuff, injuring police, and causing the politicians to stop working and to be evacuated for fear of their safety. Because its 2020, these idiots take selfies as they riot and post them on social media. Their employer sees the photos and fires them. Can the employers do that?

In the law of work, this is known as termination for “off-duty conduct“. As always, we need to distinguish between unionized and non-union workplaces. Unionized employees have MUCH greater job security. Their employer must establish that the off-duty conduct amounted to “just cause” for termination and that is a high standard. The employer would need to show that the behaviour harmed the employer’s economic interests and the employee’s past behaviour and other potential mitigating factors do not warrant giving the employee another chance. If the employer fails to meet this standard, an arbitrator would likely reinstate the employee to their old job. If you think that your employer should need a reason to terminate you, join a union.

I want to focus on non-union employees. Let’s recall the Golden Rule of the common law of the employment contract:

An employer can terminate a nonunion employee at any time, for any or no reason at all, by providing the employee with notice of termination in the amount required by the contract. That amount is either dictated expressly in the contract or the courts “imply” an obligation to provide “reasonable notice” of termination. Courts decide how much notice is “reasonable” by applying some criteria known as “the Bardal Factors”, the most important of which is length of service. All of this is explained in Chapter 10 of The Law of Work (Termination by an Employer with Reasonable Notice).

This means that any non-union employee who engages in off-duty conduct that the employer considers objectionable can be terminated with notice. [This includes for social media posts that the employer doesn’t like kiddos!]

The more interesting question is whether the marauding employees can be terminated for cause, without notice. This is known as “summary dismissal for cause” [see Chapter 12 of The Law of Work]. The test here is similar to that applied by labour arbitrators dealing with unionized employees. In order to terminate an employee, without notice, the employer needs to demonstrate on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that the employee engaged in conduct that could threaten the employer’s economic or reputational interests.

Pay attention to what is happening here. We are dealing with contract law, so the question is what rule of contract permits the employer to terminate an employee for off-duty conduct? What is the legal wrong? What contract term has the employee breached?

The answer lies in understanding implied contract terms. In Chapter 9 of The Law of Work, we discuss the implied duty of fidelity in common law employment contracts. In particular, there is in implied term in employment contracts that employees will serve their employer faithfully and cooperate in advancing the employer’s economic interests (see p. 138-139). Off-duty conduct that could undermine the employer’s economic interests violates that term.

Therefore, if the employee engages in off-duty conduct that undermines the employee’s ability to perform their duties or that threatens the employer’s reputation, for example, the employer may be justified in terminating the employee for cause, without notice.

The case I use in the textbook to demonstrate this area of the law is called Kelly v. Linamar Corporation. That case involved an employee terminated after he was arrested after child pornography was found on his home computer. As you read the decision, pay attention to the legal test that is applied. A good summary of the law can be found in paragraph 26. The employer wins that case, but why? What if Kelly was a forklift driver in some warehouse in an industrial park in Toronto? Do you think the outcome might have been different? Why?

After you have considered these questions, return to the problem we opened with. What facts would you want to know before you decide if a Canadian employer would have grounds for termination without notice of an employee caught on camera inside the Parliament buildings during a mob raid?

David Doorey, “Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds for Dismissal Without Notice?” Canadian Law of Work Forum (January 8 2021) https://lawofwork.ca/?p=13203

0 comment
1
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
What is a Minority Union?
next post
Is “60 the New 50” in Assessing Length of Reasonable Notice in Wrongful Dismissal Cases?

You may also like

Trevor Bauer Suspension: Professional Sport as a Lens...

May 3, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Bill 32 Regulations Continue Attack on Unions in...

January 5, 2022

Why So Quiet About Unions and Collective Bargaining?

December 16, 2021

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

The New European Platform Work Directive Through a...

December 9, 2021

Why Canadian Employers Do Not ‘Permanently” Replace Strikers

December 8, 2021

COVID Vaccination Policies in the Workplace: How It’s...

November 23, 2021

Uber and Lyft Suspended a Labour Activist from...

November 19, 2021

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 329 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

Well, more gravy for employment lawyers to keep arguing this silly point.

The court deciding not to dispose of the main issue everyone wants clarified is one of those matters that is impossible to explain to a non-lawyer. Contrary to normal common sense.

Sean Bawden@SeanBawden

@TheLawofWork Decides not to answer the question everyone wanted it to answer. Resolves appeal on basis of appropriateness using R. 21 to bring motion before the ONSC.

Boo.

Reply on Twitter 1524858398898003968Retweet on Twitter 1524858398898003968Like on Twitter 15248583988980039682Twitter 1524858398898003968
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
15h

What did OCA decide? I was doing this instead.

Link to decision?

Sean Bawden@SeanBawden

The ONCA's decision in Taylor today is like scratching a lottery ticket that proclaims "winner every time," only to reveal "try again."

Reply on Twitter 1524855509081374731Retweet on Twitter 1524855509081374731Like on Twitter 15248555090813747311Twitter 1524855509081374731
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
20h

This should be an interesting program, joint program in #climate and #labour offered by U of Toronto and U of Montreal through @CRIMT2013

I’ll be speaking in Toronto on just transitions and the law. Still time to register.

http://www.crimt.net/en/eess2022_programme/

Reply on Twitter 1524774620733243393Retweet on Twitter 15247746207332433931Like on Twitter 15247746207332433933Twitter 1524774620733243393
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.