Employers Can Create Win-Win Scenarios by Facilitating Re-employment for Ex-Employees

Common Law Notice 

Upon termination of employment, if an employee’s contractual entitlements are not nailed down in an up-to-date and enforceable employment contract, the employee is likely entitled to common law reasonable notice (or pay in lieu of notice) of termination. Even if an employee’s entitlements are set out in an employment contract, it is common these days for employees, on the advice of employment law counsel, to claim that some of the contract’s termination-related provisions are not Waksdale-proof, and are therefore unenforceable. (We discuss how employers can make their contracts Waksdale-proof in this blog, and best practices for rolling out updated contracts in this blog). Under both scenarios, any path to resolution will start with an assessment of the common law notice period.  

Employers Facilitating an Ex-Employee’s Re-Employment Create a Win-Win Scenario

Courts consider several factors in determining an employee’s common law notice period (i.e. the number of weeks or months of pay to bridge the employee until their next role). The primary factors are known as the Bardal factors: 

  1. the employee’s age; 
  2. their length of service; 
  3. the character of their employment (i.e. the seniority/level of responsibility of their role); and 
  4. the likelihood of finding comparable employment (i.e. an assessment of the job market). 

A simple way to understand the common law notice period is to conduct a thoughtful and informed analysis of how long it will take the employee to re-employ in a comparable role. 

Read More

Thinking of Implementing a Four-Day Workweek? Be Mindful of the Potential Legal Implications

In this current work climate, it’s all about work-life balance. Employees know what they want and if it’s not being offered at one job, they will search for it elsewhere. This has employers scrambling to offer higher salaries, greater benefits, hybrid or remote work options, or even four-day work weeks to keep up with the competitive job market. All these perks seem fine and dandy to attract employees but if you’re considering a shift to a four-day workweek, it’s important to know the legal implications this could impose.

Legal Implications of Implementing a Four-Day Workweek?

How do Four-Day Workweeks Work?

Four-day workweeks can be implemented in different ways depending on the nature of your business. Typically, employees work their same (8-hour) workdays but only four days a week, meaning they are only working 32-hour workweeks, while still receiving the same pay and benefits. Alternatively, some businesses have changed their daily working hours to 10-hour days but only four days a week, amounting to a usual 40-hour workweek. Another tactic is employees agreeing to a reduced-hour workweek while also reducing their pay to compensate for the difference.

Read More

Do Employers Have to Provide Reference Letters? The Legal Lowdown

Ah, reference letters, those elusive pieces of paper that can make or break a job seeker’s dreams. But here’s the deal: employers are not an employee’s personal fan club. They don’t have an obligation to shower employees with praise in the form of reference letters.

Before employers start feeling like kings on a throne, let’s explore the legal and strategic considerations surrounding reference letters and how they can impact an employer’s business.

No Obligation, No Problem

Let’s start with the undeniable truth: employers are under no legal obligation to hand employees a glittering reference letter, as affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal (2007 ONCA 573). So employers can rest easy, knowing that you’re not compelled to write letters of recommendation for every departing employee.

Read More

“Loud Quitting” – How Employers Can Manage this Trend

Loud Quitting” - How Employers Can Manage this Trend

Back in September, we delved into the issue of “quiet quitting” and discussed how employers can manage their quiet quitting employees. Recently, we’ve seen a new, flip-side, trend of employee’s “loud quitting”.

No employer wants a disgruntled employee making a dramatic exit from their workplace and potentially spewing ill words about the workplace. So, here are some legal tactics for employers to mitigate potential damages to their company or reputation related to loud quitting employees. 

What is Loud Quitting?

“Loud quitting” refers to an employee making a very public and disruptive departure from their job, often with the intent to call attention to perceived injustices or mismanagement at their workplace. This can take various forms, such as dramatic farewell emails, social media posts, public speeches, or even videos. While these methods may give an employee a sense of vindication or catharsis, they can potentially cause damage to a company’s reputation and morale among the remaining employees.

 

Read More

Canadian Employment Law for US Employers: Part 2 – Contracts

This is Part 2 of our blog series for US employers with operations in Canada. Click here to read Part 1 if you haven’t already.

Canadian Employment Law for US Employers

No At-Will: Contracts are a Big Deal in Canada

One of the core employment law differences between the US and Canada is that there is no at-will employment in Canada. Ever. In fact, when Canadian judges read “at-will” in a contract, they typically set aside the contract altogether and substitute in typically far more generous common law terms.

In addition, if you do not have any contracts in place, the courts will read in implied terms. This is because all Canadian employment relationships are governed by a contract under our law, whether expressly in an agreement or implied based on common law.

If an employer does not roll out a contract with their employees, the judge will imply terms and conditions that in most cases are more generous than anything the employer would have provided.

Read More

Addressing Conflicts in the Unionized Workplace: The Grievance Process

This is the second entry in our blog that focuses on the topic of labour law. In case you missed it, the first entry provided a primer on managing a unionized workplace and you can find it here.

In this blog, we provide some practical tips and tricks for unionized employers to navigate the grievance process. Conflicts in a unionized workplace are almost always addressed through the grievance process. What constitutes a grievance is typically defined by the collective agreement. A grievance is typically defined as any dispute, difference or complaint regarding the application, interpretation or alleged violation of the collective agreement. The parties to the grievance, that is the parties who are entitled to file and respond to a grievance are usually also outlined by the collective agreement. Beyond defining a grievance, the collective agreement will typically also outline the grievance process.

Read More
Back To Top