Canadian Lawyer InHouse

July 2015

Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives

Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/528990

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 12 of 43

13 CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE JULY 2015 By Tom Ross Workplace Solutions Navigating the sea of constructive dismissal Aim for changes that are not fundamental and seek agreement. I n the midst of economic uncertainty and wide- spread cost-cutting, many employers are cur- rently facing the challenge of how to taper wage costs while avoiding constructive dismissal claims. Can employers make modest changes to spare the bottom line without generating significant exposure to termination claims? The general rule of constructive dismissal is that an employer cannot make changes to employee terms and conditions of employment that are unilateral, funda - mental, and negative. The exceptions to this general rule include where: • There is consent to the change; • There is reasonable advance notice of the change or notice consistent with terms of an agreement; • Changes are not fundamental; • Changes relate to matters within the employer's discretion; • There is acceptance of the change after the fact; and • The changes are in exchange for something else of value to the employee (i.e., promotion, benefit, etc). Employers have many options available to them that are in line with these exceptions. First is to see if changes can be made that are not objectively viewed as being fundamental. An example of interest these days is across-the-board compensation or benefit changes that are negative, but modest, as a cost-cutting measure. Although constructive dismissal is a grey area, it is most easily found in cases involving compensation reduc - tions, because compensation is usually the most essen- tial term of employment for employees. However, some compensation reductions have been accepted. Some cases have found that reductions in remuneration of less than 10-to-15 per cent (without more) are not fundamental breaches; however, great caution must be exercised. Reductions in hours may also be possible without constituting constructive dismissal. This is more easily done for wage-earning employees rather than salaried employees. In the recent case of Bonsma v. Tesco Corp., the Alberta Court of Appeal held that a reduction in hours did not constitute constructive dismissal because Tom Ross is a partner with McLennan Ross LLP in Calgary. there were no guaranteed hours. Other cases have found requiring employees to reduce their weekly hours by 20 per cent or more did constitute constructive dismissal. In Otto v. Hamilton & Olsen Surveys Ltd., the Alberta Court of Appeal found that "reductions in the benefit package due to external economic pressures, but where salaries are maintained, have consistently escaped char - acterization as fundamental breaches." In that case, vaca- tion was reduced from six weeks to four and the five per cent employer RRSP match was eliminated. The ability to reduce benefits generally would depend on the signifi- cance of the benefits and the reductions in question. Courts look at the amount of the reduction, the eco- nomic situation of the employee, as well as the portion of the overall remuneration package that is being af- fected. Economic pressures do not protect an employer from the principles of constructive dismissal, but they will be considered. The threshold for this inquiry de- pends on individualized factors. Notifying employees that negative changes will be made to their terms and conditions of employment has long been thought to protect against liability. Often it does. However, there are technical aspects of how to properly deal with such notice that are critical to pro - tecting employers. In 2008, the Ontario Court of Ap- peal set out the proper approach. In Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd., the court stated that an employee has three choices when faced with unacceptable chang- es to terms and conditions of employment: • Accept the change in the terms of employment; • Reject the change and sue for constructive dismissal; or • Clearly reject the new terms and continue working. If that happens, the employer may respond by termi - nating 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. If there is a constructive dismissal, employers have the ability to offer continued employment under the new terms as a way for the employee to mitigate any damages. There may be an obligation upon the em - ployee to accept such offers where not demeaning and where reasonable in the circumstances. In looking to trim employee costs without terminat- ing employees, employers should aim for changes that are not fundamental, seek agreement, or terminate the terms in accordance with proper notice. When all else fails, mitigation or litigation may be the result. IH

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Lawyer InHouse - July 2015