Can You Get Employment Insurance (EI) If You Quit?

| June 28th, 2017 | No Comments »

If an employee voluntarily leaves their employment without reason, this would result in disqualification from EI entitlements. There are certain circumstances, however, that an individual would be able to voluntarily leave their employment without forfeiting their EI eligibility. Under the Employment Insurance Act, there are numerous reasons that allow employees to ‘quit’ without forfeiting their EI eligibility. Each of these reasons is called ‘just cause’, which means that since the employee was justified under the Act in leaving their employment, EI eligibility is not forfeited.

The ‘just causes’ scenarios listed under the Act that allows individuals to retain their EI eligibility include:

  • Sexual Harassment
  • Moving with a spouse of dependent child
  • Discrimination
  • Work that endangers health or safety
  • The need to provide care to an immediate family member
  • Assurance of a job in the immediate future
  • Negative changes to your salary/wages
  • Excessive overtime or an employer refusing to pay for overtime wages
  • Major changes to work duties
  • Discrimination due to being a member of an association, organization, union, etc.
  • Pressure from an employer or employee to leave employment

If quitting is necessary and is linked to one or more of the above ‘just cause’ qualifiers, it is important to support your decision to leave employment with any information possible. It is important to establish that quitting was the only reasonable decision that could have been made given the situation.

Upon applying for EI, an agent will assess the claim of just cause. It is important to have as much information as possible, as an investigation of the employer (if necessary) and the reasons being claimed to support just cause will be evaluated.

Unwritten Terms of Employment Contracts

| May 23rd, 2017 | No Comments »

Contracts- Implied Terms:

It is not uncommon for terms of employment between workers and employers to be unwritten. Disputes between an employee and employer may arise over past verbally-agreed-upon terms, established unwritten practices, and more. This can result in litigation and unseen costs resulting from workplace conflict. In general, the courts will attempt to determine what terms would have been agreed to between the parties if they were to produce a written contract. This is done by examining the common practices within the workplace, interactions between the employee and superiors, and so forth. Employees and employers also have duties that the courts established through common law, whether or not it is in writing.

Common Law Employer Duties:

Employers have a duty to pay their employees. There must be a regular pay period set by the employer, and this means that employees are not to be paid in arrears. The law recognizes the inherent power imbalance between employees and employers, and paying in arrears would subject employees to too much control. There are fines and penalties associated with failing to establish a regular method of pay – weekly or biweekly is most common.
Employers also have a duty to provide employees with a safe workplace and equipment. If an employee suspects they are being put in harm’s way, then they have the right to refuse any work they believe is unsafe. There are protocols for this under the Ontario Health and Safety Act. This includes the employee first notifying a supervisor, the supervisor then eliminating the hazard to the employee’s satisfaction, and, if no resolution is agreed upon, an inspection by the Ministry of Labour to determine if there is a hazard.

Employers are also obligated to provide notice or pay in lieu in the event an employer wishes to terminate an employee. This pay or notice is based upon an estimate of how long an employee would need to find comparable employment.

Common Law Employee Duties:

Employees have a duty to obey. This is fundamental to the employment relationship, as workers are providing their service in exchange for pay. Willful disobedience can lead to a summary dismissal, which means that the employer can terminated the employee without severance pay or a notice. The exception to the duty to obey is when an employee is asked to do something illegal or perform work that is unsafe. Employees also have a duty to exercise skill and care while doing their job. This includes using the skills required and also not being negligent while performing job duties.

Employers also cannot intentionally cause an employer harm, which falls under an employee’s duty of good faith and fidelity. This includes protecting trade secrets of the employer even after employment has ended, not pursuing or completing other work during hours of work, work for a competitor and so on.

Conclusion:

The above duties are a part of every employment relationship within Canada. For oral agreements that go beyond theses duties, drafting a carefully written agreement may avoid future disputes over misunderstandings within the workplace and also avoid costly litigation. For complex scenarios and terms of employment, it is best to seek an employment law professional. For any related issues, Whitten and Lublin Employment Lawyers have a team of professionals dedicated to providing great service.

Acceptable Scope of a Non-Solicitation Clause: A Real-Life Example

| April 17th, 2017 | No Comments »

For most employees, a non-solicitation clause should be all that is necessary if an employer is seeking to protect his/her business interests (clients) from employees who leave to a competitor. However, employers must be careful with the wording of such clauses because the clause must only go as far as necessary to protect the employer’s business interests. This is the ‘reasonableness’ standard with which the courts will review a non-solicitation clause. Any restrictions on the employee’s freedom to work must be necessary to protect the employer’s business or the clause will be unenforceable.

Non- Solicitation Clauses

There are a few things that a non-solicitation clause must contain to be enforceable. The clause must have a limited geographic scope and time in place that is reasonable. Further, a non-solicitation clause must be limited to the act of solicitation. If the wording of the solicitation clause goes beyond the solicitation of the employer’s client base, then it is likely to place unreasonable limits on the employee’s ability to freely compete and earn a living. Lastly, it is wise to limit the act of solicitation so that it is not too burdensome. This may entail only restricting the solicitation of the clients that the employee dealt with or the types of clients that the employee works with. To better understand the limits of a non-solicitation clause, the case of Donaldson Travel Inc. v. Murphy et al. 2016 is useful to review.

Donaldson v. Murphy, 2016 (Superior Court of Justice – Ontario)

In the case, Murphy was a former employee of Donaldson Travel that left to work for a competitor company named Goliger. One of Donaldson Travel’s claims was that Murphy solicited clients and therefore violated the non-solicitation clause that Murphy had signed. The clause reads:

Mary agrees that in the event of termination or resignation that she will not solicit or accept business from any corporate accounts or customers that are serviced by … Donaldson Travel, directly, or indirectly. (emphasis added)

The court deemed this clause unenforceable for several reasons. Firstly, there was no limit in time and geography. As it is worded, this clause would never expire and would apply anywhere in the country. This is unnecessary to protect Donaldson Travel’s business interests. Secondly, the phrase “or accept business from” goes beyond the act of solicitation. This places an unreasonable restriction on Murphy’s ability to earn a living because it is not necessary to protect Donaldson’s business interests. Lastly, the term “any corporate account” is also too broad. It would be reasonable to limit the solicitation of clients that Murphy dealt with; however, the wording here would prevent Murphy from conducting business with any clients of Donaldson, even the ones that Donaldson establishes after Murphy had left. This is not needed to protect Donaldson’s business interests by the departure of Murphy.

Closing Remarks

The burden is placed on the employer to carefully draft such clauses and to show that the clause is reasonable. The wording of the clause is important as the courts will not look beyond the wording of the clause, nor will they change the clause so that it is legally enforceable. For employees that are not in a managerial role, a non-solicitation will almost always suffice in protecting an employer’s business interests. It is important to seek the assistance of an employment lawyer when seeking to protect business interests through non-solicitation clauses.

An Impassioned Employee Storms Out of the Office: Is This Resignation?

| March 28th, 2017 | No Comments »

When an employee resigns there is usually clear actions that support their decision. This may include a written letter, a verbal statement, a notice period, information that the employee has found another position or is moving away, or so forth. The idea is that there are clear indicators that leave no doubt about the intentions of the employee to resign. However, suppose that an employee is extremely upset from an event or changes made in the workplace, and storms off and leaves suggestions that may point to a resignation. The key is to be mindful of the surrounding circumstances and following up with the employee when coming to a reasonable conclusion regarding their true intentions. To get a better sense of what this entails, a recent case of Rajinder Joha (plaintiff) vs. Simmons da Silva LLP (defendant) by the Ontario Superior Court will be reviewed below.

Rajinder Joha was a senior law clerk for Simmons da Silva LLP (Simmons). Mrs. Joha was 62 years of age and was with Simmons for 27 years.

Mrs. Jona was informed by Mr. Clark (the lawyer she worked under) of structural changes, which included Mrs. Joha being under the direction of another employee that she did not get along with, on June 3rd, 2015. The next day, Mrs. Joha claimed to have heard Mr. Clark tell another law clerk that this person was to work with Mr. Clark, which further upset Mrs. Joha. After claiming to have overhear this, Mrs. Joha removed her personal belongings from her desk and handed in her security pass to Mr. Clark. Mrs. Joha did not return to work or contact any human resource personnel from June 4th – June 8th 2015. On Tuesday June 9th, Mrs. Joha attempted to return to work after having time to think things through and obtain advice from a lawyer. However, the employer refused to allow her back, claiming she had resigned. Mrs. Joha then sought damages for wrongful dismissal.

The judge ultimately decided that in consideration of the surrounding circumstances, Mrs. Joha did not resign from her position and was entitled to damages. The key takeaway from this case is that when an employee resigns or leaves during a time of heated emotions, the employer must consider the surrounding circumstances in determining if the employee did in fact resign. In this case, the judge considered Mrs. Joha’s tenure, senior position, her age, her lack of secured alternative employment, the fact that this was out of character for Mrs. Joha, and a lack of written notice by Mrs. Joha as circumstances that indicated Mrs. Johna did not resign. Further, the employer’s actions were also considered. There was no attempt by anyone at the firm to contact Mrs. Joha regarding her suspected resignation, no follow up meeting by her boss Mr. Clark, and no attempt to discuss the matter. The employer’s inaction was an important factor here in the judge’s decision. As a result, the employer was liable for damages of wrongful dismissal.

Employers that are faced with a similar situation should always make an attempt to follow up with the employee. This should include contacting the employee to discuss the matter, an attempt to make a follow-up meeting, or a written letter to confirm the employee’s intention to resign. Employers should be mindful that a cooling off period may be necessary so that emotions do not interfere with an employee’s judgement or decision. It is best to seek legal advice from an employment law expert when in doubt to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Some resignations are terminations in disguise

| March 22nd, 2017 | No Comments »
Daniel Lublin, Employment Lawyer

Daniel Lublin, Employment Lawyer

When is a resignation a termination in disguise?

Sometimes employers too easily confuse when an employee has voluntarily decided to leave. Whether through insincerity or neglect, this is one situation where employers may try to rid themselves of an undesirable employee, without paying any severance. But not so fast. Some resignations are actually terminations in disguise.

If an employee is faced with an ultimatum between resigning or dismissal, it will almost never be a valid resignation. Some employers feel that by offering the opportunity to resign instead of facing allegations of misconduct, they are doing their employee a favour. In some cases this may be true. But in many other there is an ulterior motive. Employers know that proving just cause for dismissal is a difficult task, so they will sometimes threaten misconduct as a means to provoke a resignation instead. However, courts often recognize that employees who submit hasty resignations when faced with unproven allegations of misconduct have not legally resigned. Rather these are resignations given under pressure or duress, which are almost never upheld. A true resignation is a voluntary act, not a camouflaged termination.

A resignation must also not be given on impulse. The law recognizes that spontaneously made statements or actions, such as walking off the job after an argument, usually do not constitute a valid resignation. Several court cases have held that employers must not seize upon an employee’s emotional outbursts. In one recent decision, the court even went as far as stating that employers have a duty to provide a cooling off period to an employee who proclaims “I quit” in the heat of the moment and then confirm whether this is truly his or her intention.

A resignation, to become effective, has less to do with an employee’s statements and much more to do with his or her actions. The real test is whether an employee’s actions are consistent with someone voluntarily wishing to leave and not return. I currently have such a case. In it, the employee emphatically denies that she told her employer that she was “done” although the employer certainly feels that she did. However, she still came to work the next day as if nothing unusual had happened. It was only then when her employer, not expecting her to show up, purported to accept her resignation allegedly given the night before. The problem with the employer’s case is that, if my client truly intended on leaving for good, she would not have come back to work the very next day. So when she was told to leave, it should be viewed as a termination, not the other way around.

Employees tendering their resignation are sometimes free to withdraw it and continue working as before, as long as the employer has not already accepted the resignation and taken steps to move on. For example, an employee who gives two weeks’ notice of his or her resignation is entitled to change his or her mind, but only if the employer has not already hired or promoted a replacement.

What about an employee who is asked to leave after giving advance notice of their future resignation? Unless that employee engaged in misconduct and resigned before it came to light, employees who are asked to leave during their resignation notice period are entitled to payment for the remainder of the time frame they were prepared to work.

Even an employee who just does not show up for several days may not have resigned either. Courts often caution employers against snapping up the opportunity to claim an employee has resigned or abandoned their job and a number of cases have found that, in this situation, an employer has to take steps to reach out to the employee and try to confirm whether he or she no longer wants their job, before concluding there is a resignation.

The lessons for both employees and employers is clear. If either side finds itself in the “twilight zone” somewhere between a resignation and a termination, there are several practical steps to consider:

  • From an employee’s perspective, immediately protest any assertion that you resigned, if that was not what you intended to do. Further, if unclear, request that your options be outlined in writing and seek advice before taking any action, especially before leaving the workplace, as difficult as that may be.
  • From an employer’s perspective, the courts are increasingly requiring evidence that they were looking out for an employee’s best interests before accepting what appears to be a resignation. Therefore, if an employee’s behaviour or statements towards resigning are out of character or appear given impulsively, it is a good idea to ask them to first take some time to consider their actions and confirm their intentions in writing.

Published in the Globe and Mail.

Is an Employee Obligated to Provide an Employer ‘Reasonable Notice’ of Resignation?

| November 23rd, 2016 | No Comments »

notice of resignationIt is well known that employers must give an employee ‘reasonable notice’ or pay in lieu upon termination when there is no just cause (i.e. the employee has not done anything wrong to be fired). Conversely, although rarely pursued, an employer has the right to receive ‘reasonable notice’ from an employee planning to resign. Below, the factors for determining ‘reasonable notice’ time for employees will be reviewed with reference to a relatively recent case by the Ontario Supreme Court case [Gagnon v. Jesso ONSC] (referred to as “Jesso”).

Reasonable Notice

For employees, ‘reasonable notice’ is the period of time an employee is required to give their employer before the date they wish to resign. The amount of ‘reasonable notice’ time required from an employee will vary with respect to the importance of the employee’s position and duties. The purpose of ‘reasonable notice’ is to grant the employer enough time to either replace the employee or to adjust in a way that would avoid substantial financial losses. In general, employees with managerial responsibilities are required to provide longer notice periods; however, employees in key non-managerial roles may also be require to provide comparable notice time. Jesso highlighted the relevant factors to consider, which include: the employee’s length of service and the difficulty the employer will face with replacing the employee’s skillset (i.e. the labour market conditions). If applicable, any unique circumstances that would result in the employer needing added time to adjust must also be factored into the notice time.

Jesso Example: 

To illustrate the factors considered in determining “reasonable notice”, consider the example of Jesso v. Gagnon. Gagnon is a heating and cooling company (owned by Pierre Gagnon), and Jesso was a salesperson for nearly 10 years with a mechanical engineering degree. Jesso and his sales partner were responsible for over 60% of the company’s sales, and ultimately, a significant source of Gagnon’s revenue. Jesso eventually resigned after strained relations with his employer. Further, Jesso knew that his sales partner was also planning to resign around the same time, since both were pursuing employment with the same competitor.

Initially, Jesso gave Gagnon 2 weeks of notice but the court ruled that reasonable notice in this case would be 2 months. This is not a trivial amount of notice time. Firstly, Jesso’s length of service with Gagnon did contribute to the 2-month required notice time. The most important factor, however, was his substantial skillset, which is indicated by Jesso’s sales performance. Gagnon could not quickly replace the performance gap that Jesso’s resignation would cause. This was due to Jesso’s skillset in itself, as well as the low availability of comparable employees within this industry – these factors contributed to the length of time Gagnon would need to replace or adjust to Jesso’s resignation. Lastly, there was the issue of Jesso knowing that his sales partner was also resigning near the same time. This was a special circumstance that would add to Gagnon’s difficulty in adjusting to this loss as Jesso and his sales partner contributed to over 60% of Gagnon’s sales.

It is important to understand that the above example is a simplified generalization used to apply the relevant factors for determining reasonable notice for employees. Each case will be influenced by the particulars of the employment relationship and surrounding circumstances. Jesso makes this point clear, as any unique circumstances that may create more difficult for the employer to adjust or replace the employee must be considered. Please seek the advice of an employment law professional if faced with a similar situation.

Q&A: Forced retirement – is this allowed?

| August 17th, 2015 | No Comments »

QUESTION

Forced retirement, to some employers is one viable way of making space for a new hire.  To other employers, insinuating and making comments about forced retirement can land them in a law suit.  It is not uncommon for an employer to want a ‘young’ hire for their business and even less common for the employer to come up with ways to dismiss their senior employee in an attempt to ‘make space’.  With this topic in mind, faithful readers of the Globe and Mail have asked whether or not it is legal to make comments insinuating that an employee should retire?

ANSWER

Toronto Employment lawyer, Daniel Lublin stresses the fact that a forced retirement is an illegal termination.  In cases where an employee is being hinted to retire, an employee may be entitled to a severance package and damages for age discrimination. In fact, senior employees who are considering receipt of a severance package can ask their employer. However, be forewarned that this can have consequences.  To know how to best handle retirement situations, you should consult with a lawyer at Whitten and Lublin Employment lawyers.

Read Daniel Lublin’s Globe and Mail column and full article Can I be forced into retirement?

Q&A: Resignation rights

| April 13th, 2015 | No Comments »

I have provided my current employer with a resignation letter that included a proposed resignation date in one month’s time.  I was, however, told to immediately leave the workplace.  I have not been paid for the one month’s notice that I was prepared to provide.  I am wondering whether or not I am entitled to payment for this time frame, considering I do not presently have another job.  

While an employer can ask your to leave work before your proposed resignation date, it must nevertheless provide you with the salary and benefits that you would have earned had you actively worked for the entire one month notice period.  By relieving you of your duties and not paying you for the one month notice period, the employer effectively terminated your employment during your resignation notice period.  Subject to any contractual clause defining the amount of notice you had to provide, the employer would typically be liable to pay you for the remaining period of notice that you provided.

Q&A: Workplace Harassment

| April 6th, 2015 | No Comments »

I have been harassed by three of my co-workers in my workplace for one year. The harassment has come to an extreme where I could not take it anymore. As a result, I was unable to sleep at night and have been seeing a doctor. I finally quit my job last week because the screaming and targeting my work was unbearable. I gave the company two weeks’ notice, after which the harassment continued.  Management did nothing although they were made aware of my complaints.  

Employers have a legal obligation to provide a workplace free from harassment.

Harassment under the law is defined as conduct or comments that are known or should be known as unwelcome.  Threats and intimidation, offensive comments and belittling behavior are examples of bullying and harassment.

Not all comments are considered harassment.  You mention the targeting of your work.  Managing your performance and difference of opinion do not amount to harassment.  This is why it’s a good idea to meet with a lawyer to get a formal opinion on whether this behavior crosses the line.

Nevertheless, the obligation to provide a workplace free from harassment requires the employer to take your complaints seriously, do an investigation and take positive action.  It does not matter if the alleged harassment came from management or it was the doing of coworkers, contractors or even customers.

Your facts indicate that not only did the employer fail to address the unwelcome behavior, they ignored it, the behavior persisted and it impacted your health to the extent that you were forced to resign.  This may be considered a constructive dismissal as you were forced to leave gainful employment because of a poisoned working environment and if so, you will be awarded damages while you look for another job and possibly additional damages as a result of the employer’s failure to take your complaints seriously.

How strict are non-compete clauses?

| December 4th, 2014 | 1 Comment »

Employee’s sometimes believe that non-compete clauses are valid subject to the size of their employer company. Many would be surprised to hear that this is not the case. If an employee works for company A and decides to move to company B, the employee should be vigilant about whether or not a non-compete clause exists and if it prevents them from working with company B.

Toronto Employment lawyer, Daniel Lublin clarifies in his Globe and Mail column that the belief that employers cannot prevent you from working within your industry is incorrect. In fact, judges will enforce clauses that are properly drafted. Experts in the field of employment law are people qualified to review these clauses and can advise you on whether or not they are enforceable. Leaving the strength of these clauses on pure chance is a very bad idea.

Read Daniel Lublin’s Globe and Mail column and full article Am I allowed to record conversations at work?