Dismissing an employee in B.C.: Common law vs. employment ......ANDRES BARKER Andres Barker is a...
2
EMPLOYMENT standards legislation in all jurisdictions provides minimum standards and limitations for employers regarding how they treat their employees in various aspects of the job. HR professionals and employers must keep these standards in mind as they run their businesses. In British Columbia, employers have another layer of administration to deal with — the Employment Standards Branch. The Employment Standards Branch has its own administrative procedures on enforcing the province’s employment standards legislation. The result is that B.C. has two different streams of enforcement, depending on whether the issue at hand deals directly with legislative rights or common law rights. BACKGROUND 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 Dismissing an employee in B.C.: Common law vs. employment standards legislation Two regimes in B.C. provide different routes to cover common law and employment standards requirements T he rights and duties of employees and employers arise both at com- mon law and under statute — in British Columbia, the statutory requirements around such issues as wages and severance are set out in the province’s Employment Standards Act (ESA). Employees in B.C. may enforce many of their rights in their contract of employment through the court system; however, because of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in Macaraeg v. E Care Contract Centers, they must use the administrative procedures set up by the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) to enforce any legal rights that arise directly from the ESA. While both regimes deal with a number of similar employment law issues, the courts and the ESB have developed certain nuanced differences in approach, particularly in the area of termi- nation. For this reason, human resources professionals and legal counsel alike should be familiar with the differences between the two forums. ere are four ways in which the com- mon law and employment standards legis- lation differ with respect to employee dis- missal in BC, namely: • Mitigation and severance pay • Constructive dismissal and condonation • Calculating severance pay • Notice of termination. Mitigation and payment of severance pay It is a well-established common law prin- ciple that where there is no severance-lim- iting clause in his employment contract, a dismissed employee is entitled to reason- able notice of termination (or pay in lieu thereof ). During the notice period, the em- ployee must mitigate her losses, and any wages she earns through new employment during that time can be deducted from any damages she receives in a successful wrong- ful dismissal claim. is creates a circum- stance whereby an employee who is fired and immediately starts work at a new job with the same pay may suffer no damages for loss of salary by the end of the notice period. Even though her employer breached the employment contract, the employee has no provable damages from the breach. By comparison, no such mitigation prin- ciple applies under the ESA. As soon as it dismisses an employee, an employer be- comes liable to pay her the minimum sev- erance amount set out in s. 63 of the ESA (unless one of the legislated exceptions in s. 65 applies). Furthermore, this statutory amount must be paid within 48 hours fol- lowing dismissal. For this reason, an em- ployer should always pay a dismissed em- ployee the appropriate statutory minimum at the time of termination, even in cases where severance negotiations are ongoing. Constructive dismissal and condonation At common law, if an employee contin- ues in her position after her employer has made a unilateral, fundamental change to her employment (amounting to construc- tive dismissal), she may be deemed to have accepted, or condoned, the changes. is means that after a period of time, she will be precluded from suing for constructive dismissal on the basis that her conduct was a tacit agreement to the employer’s altera- tions — or rather, she can sue, but the em- ployer may succeed in its defence by claim- ing condonation. Section 66 of the ESA essentially codifies the common law principle of constructive dismissal, and dictates that if a condition of employment is substantially altered, the Director of Employment Standards may determine the employee’s employment to be terminated. e manner in which these ESB claims are assessed is similar to how a court determines whether a constructive dismissal has occurred. However, the key difference under the employment standards regime is that there is no condonation ar- gument available to an employer. Under s. 66, the termination of employment occurs as soon as the employer alters the employ- ment terms, such that it cannot escape its severance obligations simply because the employee continues to work following the statutory constructive dismissal: see Isle ree Holdings Ltd. and British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards), Re. is approach is consistent with the ESB’s position that employee mitigation does not affect an employer’s obligation to pay statu- tory severance pay. As such, employers should keep in mind that an employee who waits too long to bring a civil claim for constructive dismissal may still have recourse against the employer through the ESA. Calculation of severance pay Common law damages for wrongful dis- missal are meant to compensate an em- ployee for her lost earnings throughout the notice period. is means the court’s dam- ages assessment may need to incorporate seasonal work stoppages or slowdowns, or anticipate the payment of bonuses or other incentives. e common law also entitles the dismissed employee to compensation for the loss of opportunity to earn com- missions, such that a damages award will include commissions he would likely have received during the notice period. In assess- ing this amount, courts will examine a vari- ety of factors, including the employee’s past commission earnings over a representative period, the employer’s actual or anticipated sales revenues, and whether the business CASE IN POINT: EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Transcript of Dismissing an employee in B.C.: Common law vs. employment ......ANDRES BARKER Andres Barker is a...
EMPLOYMENT standards legislation in all jurisdictions provides minimum standards and limitations for employers regarding how they treat their employees in various aspects of the job. HR professionals and employers must keep these standards in mind as they run their businesses. In British Columbia, employers have another layer of administration to deal with — the Employment Standards Branch. The Employment Standards Branch has its own administrative procedures on enforcing the province’s employment standards legislation. The result is that B.C. has two different streams of enforcement, depending on whether the issue at hand deals directly with legislative rights or common law rights.
BACKGROUND
4
Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015
Dismissing an employee in B.C.: Common law vs. employment standards legislation Two regimes in B.C. provide different routes to cover common law and employment standards requirements
The rights and duties of employees and employers arise both at com-mon law and under statute — in British Columbia, the statutory
requirements around such issues as wages and severance are set out in the province’s Employment Standards Act (ESA).
Employees in B.C. may enforce many of their rights in their contract of employment through the court system; however, because of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in Macaraeg v. E Care Contract Centers, they must use the administrative procedures set up by the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) to enforce any legal rights that arise directly from the ESA. While both regimes deal with a number of similar employment law issues, the courts and the ESB have developed certain nuanced differences in approach, particularly in the area of termi-nation. For this reason, human resources professionals and legal counsel alike should be familiar with the differences between the two forums.
There are four ways in which the com-mon law and employment standards legis-lation differ with respect to employee dis-missal in BC, namely:• Mitigation and severance pay• Constructive dismissal and condonation• Calculating severance pay• Notice of termination.
Mitigation and payment of severance payIt is a well-established common law prin-ciple that where there is no severance-lim-iting clause in his employment contract, a dismissed employee is entitled to reason-able notice of termination (or pay in lieu thereof). During the notice period, the em-ployee must mitigate her losses, and any wages she earns through new employment during that time can be deducted from any
damages she receives in a successful wrong-ful dismissal claim. This creates a circum-stance whereby an employee who is fired and immediately starts work at a new job with the same pay may suffer no damages for loss of salary by the end of the notice period. Even though her employer breached the employment contract, the employee has no provable damages from the breach.
By comparison, no such mitigation prin-ciple applies under the ESA. As soon as it dismisses an employee, an employer be-comes liable to pay her the minimum sev-erance amount set out in s. 63 of the ESA (unless one of the legislated exceptions in s. 65 applies). Furthermore, this statutory amount must be paid within 48 hours fol-lowing dismissal. For this reason, an em-ployer should always pay a dismissed em-ployee the appropriate statutory minimum at the time of termination, even in cases where severance negotiations are ongoing.
Constructive dismissal and condonation At common law, if an employee contin-ues in her position after her employer has made a unilateral, fundamental change to her employment (amounting to construc-tive dismissal), she may be deemed to have accepted, or condoned, the changes. This means that after a period of time, she will be precluded from suing for constructive dismissal on the basis that her conduct was a tacit agreement to the employer’s altera-tions — or rather, she can sue, but the em-ployer may succeed in its defence by claim-ing condonation.
Section 66 of the ESA essentially codifies the common law principle of constructive dismissal, and dictates that if a condition of employment is substantially altered, the Director of Employment Standards may determine the employee’s employment to
be terminated. The manner in which these ESB claims are assessed is similar to how a court determines whether a constructive dismissal has occurred. However, the key difference under the employment standards regime is that there is no condonation ar-gument available to an employer. Under s. 66, the termination of employment occurs as soon as the employer alters the employ-ment terms, such that it cannot escape its severance obligations simply because the employee continues to work following the statutory constructive dismissal: see Isle Three Holdings Ltd. and British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards), Re. This approach is consistent with the ESB’s position that employee mitigation does not affect an employer’s obligation to pay statu-tory severance pay.
As such, employers should keep in mind that an employee who waits too long to bring a civil claim for constructive dismissal may still have recourse against the employer through the ESA.
Calculation of severance payCommon law damages for wrongful dis-missal are meant to compensate an em-ployee for her lost earnings throughout the notice period. This means the court’s dam-ages assessment may need to incorporate seasonal work stoppages or slowdowns, or anticipate the payment of bonuses or other incentives. The common law also entitles the dismissed employee to compensation for the loss of opportunity to earn com-missions, such that a damages award will include commissions he would likely have received during the notice period. In assess-ing this amount, courts will examine a vari-ety of factors, including the employee’s past commission earnings over a representative period, the employer’s actual or anticipated sales revenues, and whether the business CA
SE IN
POI
NT: E
MPL
OYM
ENT S
TAND
ARDS
Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
ANDRES BARKERAndres Barker is a Vancouver-based employment lawyer
with Kent Employment Law. He can be reached at (604) 266-7006 ext. 225 or [email protected].
CR
EDIT
: BG
SMIT
H/S
HU
TTER
STO
CK
conditions during the relevant period were responsible for unusually high or low com-mission earnings.
Section 63 of the ESA, on the other hand, contains a specific formula for the calculation of severance pay, known as “compensation for length of service.” The employer must add up the regular wages the employee earned in the last eight weeks she worked normal or average hours, and divide that number by eight to arrive at the calculation of one week’s wages. In completing its calculations, the employer must exclude any weeks which are not representative of the employee’s typical hours of work. The result is that an employee who works on a commission or piecework basis could see her entitlement fluctuate depending on his sales or work vol-ume in the eight weeks before termination. Another difference from the common law is that the ESA excludes overtime from the calculation of severance pay. By comparison, an employee may be able to make a claim for lost overtime in court if she worked overtime so consistently that it had become a regular part of the compensation package.
These differences can create a situation where the calculation used by the employer to pay the employee her statutory severance amount is significantly different from the cal-culation used in the parties’ forward-looking separation negotiations or by the courts. Therefore, employers and employees both should be mindful of these differences and
consider whether the departing employee is being under- or over-compensated through the final negotiated severance amount.
Notice of terminationAt common-law, an employer is not required to give an employee written notice of termi-nation. While it is advisable to provide writ-ten notice since this will create clarity around the date of notice and the terms of dismissal, there is no obligation to do so.
By contrast, the ESA requires that notice of termination be delivered in writing. Even if notice is clearly delivered verbally, an em-ployee can still claim minimum termination pay through the ESB if she failed to receive notice in writing. This can create a scenario of an employee receiving common-law rea-sonable notice entitlements, but still being able to file a complaint with the Employment Standards Branch to obtain further separa-tion payments.
Take-away for employers and employeesAlthough this article is specific to British Columbia, it highlights the need to consider how a provincial employment standards re-gime may differ from general common law principles. Employers and employees should both keep in mind the above differences where an actual or constructive dismissal has occurred, and when negotiating and calcu-lating appropriate separation packages.
For more information see:• Macaraeg v. E Care Contract Centers Ltd., 2008 CarswellBC 855 (B.C. C.A.).• Isle Three Holdings Ltd. and British Colum-bia (Director of Employment Standards), Re, 2008 CarswellBC 3712 (B.C. Empl. Stnds. Trib.).
Sept
embe
r 30,
2015
| Ca
nadi
an Em
ploy
men
t Law
Tod
ay
