In the current economic situation continued employment and employment relationships are more critical than ever. Loyal and productive workers will give employers the best chance of coming out unscathed at the end of this long recession. In these uncertain times, economic pressures may require the employer reorganize or restructure the workforce. Doing so correctly and in accordance with the law, will ensure the continued survival of the company, profitability and reputation.
laws on employment standards have changed little in recent years. Still, you must know that when considering going, layoffs and terminations.
What is Old?
The Employment Standards Act is the cornerstone of most Canadian employment relationships, but in recent years, the common law is applied much more often determining reasonable notice for termination.
The purpose of the Act is to ensure basic benefits and conditions for workers and to ensure fair treatment. The Act applies to all employees other than those excluded by regulation (eg some experts, who considered the jobs and collective agreements speak certain rights). Minimum legal requirements can not be waived (except for working hours and overtime for managers and certain employees).
Among many other rights and protection, as stipulated by law, overtime pay, statutory holidays, vacation leave and various other leaves of absence from work and the penalties for violations of these and other rights.
most important and subject to exceptions set out in the Act, provides in sections 63 and 64 for debt employers on notice or pay in lieu of notice. After three months of work, the employee, who is said is owed wages One week ‘given. After 12 months of service right rises to two weeks wages. Finally, after three years of service for three weeks ‘wages and additional weeks pay for each year for a maximum of eight weeks’ salary on termination. In addition, where more than 50 employees are to be completed in the two-month period, certain modified right to prior notice to come and rise further if more than 100 employees to influence and further if more than 300 employees are affected by .
Director appointed under the Employment Standards Act, and the Employment Standards Tribunal are charged with implementation and resources according to law. The Director has full investigation and prosecutorial powers to ensure compliance and to enforce stiff penalties.
However, there are limits to the powers that are important to know in order to protect your business from unlawful interference by the provincial supervisors.
Employers may also be liable for wrongful termination and / or constructive termination of the joint
law will be discussed below. The responsibility for the common law for wrongful dismissal can be up to three times higher award statutorily mandated by law. Do the right issues.
Employment remains a key way to record and protect critical employment. Just agreed they protect both sides, ensure compliance with relevant laws and ensure peace in the labor market. This is especially true for employees such as managers and professionals Act does not apply; a properly drafted contract and policies are the only way that the parties can take their rights and relationships.
What’s new?
In addition to the laws and agreements that above the Supreme Court of Canada has been busy hearing labor cases in 2008 and 2009. The Supreme Court has delivered several recent reviews of the law of employment in general and fairness, union settings, DAMAGES FOR wrongful termination, aggravated and PUNITIVE DAMAGES, duties departure of employees and restrictive covenants. Here we focus on three groundbreaking decisions.
Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 SCR 362 damages from wrongful termination.
Court in Keays had a chance to review damage award for wrongful dismissal. The court was clear that the Bardal factors continue to manage reasonable notice required. The Bardal factors are the age of the employee; length of service, the nature of employment and the availability of alternative employment in terms of training, skills and experience. The Court had the opportunity to review and sharpen its previous decision in Wallace where it held that bad faith in the manner of dismissal would aggravate or extend the notice period. Court favors now forseeability strict test to compensation, in other words, “what did the contract promise?”. Usually it does not promise peace of mind, but the employee could stop with reasonable notice. If the employee can prove that it was foreseeable that the damage of the kind word (such as mental distress) was in the minds of the parties enter into a contract that compensation may be granted; independent consideration of additional or punitive damages. Spell out expectations at the time of negotiation has never been more important.
RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (2008) SCC 54 the employment relationship and obligations of employees to employers.
The RBC Court considered aspects of the employment relationship and obligations of permanent employees, those who do not owe fiduciary obligations to the employer. The Court held that ordinary workers are free to compete against the former employer after termination of employment. The labor market and the notice period, employees, the general duties of loyalty and good faith, and indeed often obliged to provide proper notice of termination, but otherwise terminated is free to compete.
The Court recognized that anything drawn and reasonable restrictive covenants on competition and invited the parties may be enforceable, but these provisions were absent in this case. Are they in your contract?
KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. v. Shafron (2009) 6 SCC the validity of the restrictive covenant.
In Shafron Court had the opportunity to determine the proper approach to the dissolution of the employment contracts. In this case, the Court examined the restrictive covenant pretend to prevent employee compete in the three years after the termination of the “Metropolitan City of Vancouver”. There is no such legal description of the City of Vancouver.
The court decided that it was not its role to either blue-line (meaning to strike out part of the provisions to make it legal) or participate in academic Liquidation (which means reading down or interpret provisions to save it), especially in the case of employment contracts. In fact, the Court found that the theoretical retirement payments would not be in employment agreements generally. The lesson is that any restrictive covenant must be written with the utmost care to ensure certainty and unambiguous or it can be stuck out, leaving no protection of the commercial interests of the employer. Interesting question then is whether characterize the spatial radius “Lower Mainland BC” is vague and ambiguous. We are now demanding a number of restrictive covenants employ this term to describe the South Coast BC.
Understanding and respect these important judgments are key to maintaining appropriate relations professional, to protect your business and ensure that your business does not end up on the wrong side of the law.
Why This Matters
company lives on profitability and reputation. Ignorance of the law professional can cut into your profits with the possibility of large damage awards. If that’s not enough, I think that large damage awards by sensationalized headline in the local paper. Clients and customers are making decisions about service today in many cases based on value and not on loyalty? You will continue to be the top choice of