Question:

If working in a salaried position and being in sales (during a time of low sales) can your employer "pull salary" away from you and place you solely on commission effective immediately, even if there is an employment contract signed stating the annual salary?

Answer:

Your employer cannot unilaterally change your compensation structure in a severe way. There are many cases that state going from salary to commission is a real and substantial change to your compensation such that you can consider this action as amounting to your dismissal. In other words, you can reject the change and look for other work or you may be able to simply leave and claim you were dismissed. You could then sue for damages for your economic losses while you are out of work.

As this area of the law is quite complex and your election is important, I would recommend meeting with an employment lawyer who can explain your rights to you in greater detail and build a strategy that best fits your particular situation.

For more information on constructive dismissal situations, like the one above, please see my free employment law advice page on constructive dismissal, here.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful and constructive dismissal. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com.

Mark McMorrine will likely be styling hair in prison for the next 18 months.

The Lasswade, Scotland hairdresser was recently convicted of theft and fraud stemming from a scheme in which he stole equipment from the salon which employed him and sold it via his eBay account. It is reported that McMorrine netted more $125,000 from the sale of the items which ranged from flattening irons to posh shampoos.

Theft from one’s employer has long been regarded as cause for dismissal. In McMorrine’s case, he lost both his job and his freedom. Please visit Canadian Employment Law Today for more on this story.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com.

In its recent decision in RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, the Supreme Court of Canada has reinforced an employee’s duty to provide reasonable notice of resignation as well as, reestablished an employee’s duty of good faith towards his or her employer.

The decisions stems from a case where branch manager Don Delamont arranged the mass departure of virtually the entire branch staff, and as a result, a large volume of the branch’s client base.

The Court awarded damages to RBC on 2 separate but similar fronts;

1. Damages payable by Delamontfor nearly $1.5M for breach of his fiduciary duty of good faith to his employer. The damages being calculated by estimating the branch’s losses for the 5 year period after the exodus; and

2. Damages payable by the non-management employees who failed to provide reasonable notice of their resignation. These damages were calculated based on the losses to RBC over a 2.5 week period, which amount to about $40,000 total.

What to take from this case? Management employees have a fiduciary duty to retain clients and employees. Also, because the Court established that non-management employees do not have the same fiduciary duty, employers may consider including more favorable resignation provisions into its employee contracts.

For employees, the decisions confirms the common law duty to provide fair resignation notice. This is much like an employer’s duty to provide fair termination notice to an employee.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer focusing in the law of wrongful dismissal. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

In a recent Ontario Superior Court decision, Adjemian v. Brook Crompton North America, 2008 CanLII 27469 (ON S.C.), Daniel A. Lublin successfully argued for and won a Motion for Summary Judgment, effectively winning the case without calling a single witness.

As reported in the Canadian Cases on Employment Law (67 C.C.E.L. (3d) 118), Justice Perell awarded a judgment in favour of Ms. Adjemian for damages stemming from her wrongful dismissal amounting to $61,944.65 plus pre and post judgment interest and legal fees.

Daniel A. Lublin is an employment lawyer focusing on the law of dismissal. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com.

Major accounting firm KPMG has recently settled the class action lawsuit launched on behalf of employees who claimed damages for unpaid overtime.

The settlement, expected to be worth about $10 million dollars, was announced last week. Employees now have until September 30th to claim their portion of the settlement.

Unfortunately for the employees affected by the claim, they now have another hurdle to jump before they can recoup damages. The employees must now prove that they fall into the class that has been awarded the damages.

As I ‘ve stated in my previous post regarding the current Scotiabank and Bell Canada mass torts, a class action lawsuit, while appropriate for overtime and pension claims, may not always be in the best interest of the plaintiffs or may not be particularly practical in mass dismissal claims.  In wrongful dismissal claims, class actions habitually fail to consider the individual employee’s mitigation efforts, they regularly force a broad application of the Bardal principles, and there is often a duplication of work on client files. 

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer focusing on the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

As reported by the Toronto Star, Rick Sullivan sent an email to pal Jason Wade regarding rumours about former co-worker, Ronald Harrington.  The contents alleged that Harrington was dismissed from his previous employment for “cooking the books”. Wade, director of operations for WesTower, Harrington’s new employer, shared the email with Harrington. The email was eventually shared with George Patton, Harrington’s previous employer and the person Sullivan alleged to have fired Harrington.

Harrington claimed that the contents of Sullivan’s email were defamatory and resulted in stress and panic attacks. The suit was settled out-of-court for about $7,800.00.   

The underlying principle of this matter is that sending a malicious email, even if only addressed to one person, can have a much broader touch that ever imagined.  Many people who use email do not consider that the service essentially keeps a written record of all correspondence. As Harrington did, many of my clients often rely on email records to support their claim.

The lesson learned here, as I have mentioned in my weekly column several times, when dealing with electronic communication, employees and employers should always observe the following advice;

1. Thoroughly review and follow any workplace computer and Internet misuse policies.
 
2. Exercise caution when communicating with or providing advice to clients or colleagues.   

3.  Allow common sense to prevail.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

American employers have begun to ask new employees to sign a waiver which effectively reduces the limitation period for employment law claims to 6 months after the loss.

Our friends at Law.com recently reported how DaimlerChrysler Corp. won a battle to enforce such an agreement. Mee Sanders was denied portions of her claim against her union and ex-employer because the Court ruled that Sanders waived her legal right to a 2 year limitation period when she applied for the position, thus reducing it to a 6 month limitation period.

The clause that Chrysler relied on, shown below, is brought to the attention of all applicants during the job application process.

In consideration of Chrysler’s review of my application, I agree that any claim or lawsuit arising out of my employment with, or my application for employment with Chrysler Corporation or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. While I understand that the statute of limitations for claims arising out of an employment action may be longer than six (6) months, I agree to be bound by the six (6) month period of limitations set forth herein and I WAIVE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.

In Canada the enforcement of a similar clause is doubtful.  Canadian courts will not enforce contractual clauses that provide employees with less than their statutory entitlement.  In other words, if the clause is viewed as illegal, it is void for public policy reasons. 

While Canadian employees can agree to limit their entitlements to less than they would receive had there been no clause in their contract, there are still various tests that must be met in order to enforce such a clause. 

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer practicing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

The verdict is out: Human rights trump hair styles.

In November, 2007, Canadian entrepreneur, Sarah Desrosiers,
faced a legal battle after denying employment to Bushra Noah for wearing her
traditional headscarf and refusing to display her hair in Desrosier’s trendy London, England salon.

Desrosier claimed that she needed her employees to show off
their hairstyles to market her hair salon. After months of debating, the
employment tribunal panel has finally ruled that Desrosiers’ actions were
“indirect discrimination” against Noah.

The panel awarded Noah £4000 (the equivalent of about $8000
Cdn) for “injury to feeling” but dismissed her claims for direct religious
discrimination. The panel further stated that Desrosiers did not provide enough
evidence to demonstrate that a stylist with covered hair would have negatively
impacted her salon.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

America has started a new trend offering employees special summer hours to enhance
employee morale and overall quality of life. Will Canada follow?

“Summer Fridays” are gaining popularity among U.S. companies,
particularly small businesses looking for a competitive edge to attract new
employees. In an effort to ensure work-life balance, companies are giving
employees half-days or full days off on summer Fridays. Other options include
telecommuting or shift-sharing.

With rising gas prices, “Summer Fridays” offer employees the
chance to adjust their work arrangements and save both time and money.

If your employer is not offering Summer Fridays, or anything
of the like, propose the idea by: 

- Seeking out a manager at the executive level and
arguing the benefits of summer hours to the company. In particular, mention a
more cohesive company culture and increased worker productivity.

- Making clear that employees will still be accessible
via email and telephone.

- Offering to make up extra hours in the workweek for an
occasional Friday off.

For more: The Globe & Mail

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

Last February U.S. Judge Robert Somma was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Clad in a women’s dress, stockings, and pumps, his arrest led to much media scrutiny. Two days after pleading no contest to the charges, Mr. Somma tendered his resignation to the court system, giving them 2 weeks notice.

Once his 2 week notice period was nearing it’s end, Mr. Somma started the wheels in motion to rescind his resignation.  His attempt to be reinstated was accompanied by over 200 lawyers who sent letters in support of Somma.  His notice period was extended another month, however, his quest for reinstatement ended on May 30th with the court issued press release stating that Somma is "leaving to pursue other endeavors".

Rescinding a resignation is possible in certain circumstances. In my September 2007 article, True resignation is voluntary, I noted that employees are sometimes free to withdraw a resignation and continue as before.  This would be subject to whether or not the employer had ‘accepted’ the resignation by its actions or conduct.  See the case of Andrew Kieran for more.   

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com