In 2016, the Court of Appeal of Quebec has clarified that reduced employer prestige cannot, in itself, serve as grounds for constructive dismissal in the specific context of business acquisitions.
En 2016, la Cour d’appel du Québec a conclu que, dans le contexte de l’aliénation d’une entreprise, le fait pour un employé de passer à un employeur moins prestigieux ne peut, en soi, constituer un congédiement déguisé.
Despite workplace boredom being a mundane reality of some working lives, it may also be the catalyst for more serious workplace concerns. At the extreme, in limited circumstances, boredom could even form the basis for constructive dismissal.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a case where an employee who was told to, “Get out!” constituted constructive dismissal; a case that addresses the question of whether an employer can restructure the workplace in good faith without constructively dismissing an employee; and a case that looks at whether federally-regulated employees can be terminated without cause.
It is not uncommon for an organization to move their offices, or to “transfer” an employee from one location to another. Sometimes, the move is across the street, while other moves are across the country or farther. What happens if an employee refuses to relocate?
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with three cases: One case looks at the “suitability test” to establish whether the employer acted in good faith; the second case looks at constructive dismissal; and the third case addresses the question of whether employers can terminate disobedient employees for cause.
Termination of an employment relationship can come in many forms; some apparent and some not so. In the latter case, it often falls to a court to determine whether an employer’s actions constitute dismissal or constructive dismissal. This was the issue faced by Justice Lack in the recent decision of Sweeting v Mok.
When the T-1000 came from the future to destroy John Connor, Arnie made sure he was stopped in his tracks. While employers who have to date relied upon prohibitive time and costs to deter ex-employee claims might not face the wrath that Skynet did, given the recent decision of Cloutier v. Q Residential LP Corp (Cloutier), 2015 ONSC 4431 (CanLII), a rethinking of such approaches may be required.
To appreciate the dangers of varying employment terms, we must start with the foundations of contract law. First, a contract requires that each party receive a benefit (consideration). Second, if the parties agree to a variation of contract, but consideration is not received by both parties, Courts will consider the new contract an “unenforceable unilateral variation”. Third…
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with changes to employment agreements; consequences of employee comments; and, opinions from non-doctor health and medical professionals.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with paid bereavement leave; voiding employment contract; and, terminating long-term employees.