Share | Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter See us on Youtube

The Latest on Overtime Class Actions

There has been lots of press coverage respecting a number of class actions by employees who claim that they have been improperly denied overtime pay.  The reality is that actions by individual employees are unlikely to be commenced as the legal fees relative to the potential recovery make such claims prohibitively expensive except in cases in which the overtime claim is part of a larger wrongful dismissal action.  Additionally, it would generally not be a great career move for an employee to advance such a claim against his or her current employer.  A class action has the potential to address each of those disincentives for employees.
 
The most recent decision in a string of such class actions is the case of Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce which was released by Mr. Justice Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court on April 27, 2012. 

Employees Not Required to Stay to Mitigate Damages After Being Constructively Dismissed

In the recent decision of Chandran v. National Bank of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided clarity on whether an employee is required to stay with his/her employer in order to mitigate his/her damages after being constructively dismissed.
The Court of Appeal ruled that where the workplace might be perceived as humiliating or embarrassing, employees are not required to stay with their employers to mitigate their damages.
Chandran was a senior manager at the National Bank and had eleven employees reporting directly to him. The bank conducted a survey asking employees about Chandran’s behaviour. The results of the survey indicated that Chandran was at times a bully and that he embarrassed people. As a result of these findings, the bank demoted Chandran from his supervisory position and offered him two different positions, each of which provided Chandran with a similar rate of pay and level within the organization, but did not include any supervisory responsibilities. 

State of the Unions

In the wake of belt-tightening budgets from government and a growing sense that labour relations are entering a more difficult period in both the public and private sectors, an article in last weekend’s Globe and Mail by John Allemang makes for interesting reading – whether your organization is unionized or not. Find it at The Sorry State of our Unions.

Constructive Dismissal - Can Employers Make Changes in the Workplace?

In the fast-paced world of business, companies often have to make changes to the way in which they operate. Sometimes these changes will result in changes to the terms and conditions of employment for certain employees. In these circumstances, employers should be aware that as a general principle, under Canada’s common laws, an employee is considered to have been constructively dismissed by his/her employer if the employer unilaterally changes a fundamental term or condition of employment. To determine whether a change constitutes a constructive dismissal, an assessment will need to be made on a case by case basis, taking into account factors such as the magnitude of change, whether the change affects all employees and whether the change is being made in conjunction with other concurrent changes. Assuming that a proposed change is being made to a fundamental term or condition of employment, the employer must proceed very cautiously. Generally, taking the following steps will serve to mitigate against this risk: 1. Provide the employee with reasonable advance notice of the fundamental change. Be sure to make it clear that if the employee does not accept the change, his/her employment will be terminated at the end of the reasonable advance notice; and/or 2. Provide the employee with some form of consideration to accept the change. For example, provide the employee with a signing bonus in exchange for his/her acceptance of the fundamental change. Certainly employers need to be able to make changes in the workplace, but it is important to recognize that introducing such changes may result in significant liability. Taking the above steps will serve to reduce the risk of a claim for constructive dismissal.

Temporary Layoffs – Another Lesson for Unwary Employers

In July 2011, I posted a blog on Temporary Layoffs – A Lesson for Unwary Employers.
Since then, on December 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision dealing with temporary layoffs. This decision can be found at Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service (2001) Ltd.
The facts are simple.
Mr. Elsegood was employed as a spring technician for approximately 7 years. He first went on temporary layoff on April 4, 2009 with a recall date of June 9, 2009. He was then laid off again on July 28, 2009. On January 22, 2010, the cumulative duration of his layoffs reached the maximum period permitted for temporary layoffs (i.e. 35 weeks in any 52-week period) under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”).
Mr. Elsegood did not claim his 7-weeks’ termination pay under the ESA. Rather, he successfully brought a claim for common law damages for wrongful dismissal in the Small Claims Court, and was awarded damages equal to a 6-month reasonable notice period, plus interests and costs.
[Please click the title to read more.]

linkedin linkEmail Chris
Chris has been practicing labour and employment law for over 25 years. This would explain the hair colour.

linkedin linkEmail Mary Lou
Partner and avid book club member.  Truth be told, very little of her book club’s discussion is ever about the book!

linkedin linkEmail Beth
After several years of working towards a career in midwifery,  realized she had been focusing on the wrong kind of “labour”.

linkedin linkEmail Andrea
Closet comedienne and relieved Bay Street transplant.

Browse through past ARTICLE ARCHIVES