Not sure where the column is now.
The ìmplied contractis made up of all the behaviour the employer and employee have agreed to over the years - say things like borrow the company car for the weekend or leave early of Fridays or how bonus is paid. If the behaviour is tolerated, unless there is an announcement that the policy is changing, the employer cannot suddenly discipline or fire the employee for what was implied employment conditions. If the policy change substantially alters the job (i.e. weve decided to change the bonus system because you make way too much that way) then it could be constructive dismissal.
Do you understand what is meant by a legal citation that supports your position?
No snark, just wondering. Because so far, you have cited blogs, commentaries, and “general information” websites. But you have not supplied a proper legal citation.
If you are going to argue legally, you need to provide proper primary sources–that is, either statutes or caselaw. Commentaries won’t do it, no matter who they are written by. You can use commentaries as a guide to statutes and caselaw, but in the end, if you are going to argue legally, you must cite statutes and/or caselaw as primary sources. You must take what those sources say, and apply them to the facts of the matter.
Basically, you have been arguing based on hearsay–what somebody has said about something else on various websites. That doesn’t work in a legal argument. You need to go back to the primary sources and analyze them in such a way that it supports your position. And if it doesn’t, then you look for a primary source that does, and distinguish the primary sources that don’t.
If you insist on commenting and arguing on legal questions “in Canada,” as you so often do, you might wish to take a course in legal research. In such a course, you will quickly learn that blogs, commentaries, and other opinions carry very little weight, but that statutes and caselaw do.
Do you understand the concept that a normal person does not have access to case law and other crap, and, anyways, is not a lawyer? Do you realize that expecting a layperson to cite law is ridiculous? This is not a legal board. Stop treating it like it is.
It is ridiculous to expect a layperson to cite law instead of citing experts on the law. It’s even more ridiculous because they dare argue like they would any other topic. If you have a factual problem, you can bring a citation showing it.
Providing citations from experts is what we do on this board. There are other boards out there if you want to talk to only lawyers.
Yes, I’m not sure what we are arguing.
Spoons started by saying I was completely wrong; in fact, the numbers I first stated for mandatory weeks separation pay, although they vary from province to province, are close to the actual numbers for most provinces. If I had said “you get 10” when you get 2, ok. But most provinces start at about 2 after 1 year of service. And… the number goes up with years of service.
He said I was wrong - maybe he meant about what typically constituted constructive dismissal. Not sure how anything in the above contradicts what I said, including the cites of articles by lawyers saying the same thing. Yes, courts have held that bonus pay is included when considering “demotion or cut in pay”. Constructive dismissal usually applies to higher level employees because, among other reasons, they can be more obviously demoted, they make more money so are likely to get it cut, they have the most to gain from a lawsuit so typically they make it to court. I haven’t seen a cite where relocating a head office does not entitle the employees to “constructive dismissal” separation pay if they choose not to move. Everything I’ve read about Canadian cases says the opposite.
A lawyer practising in the field, and paid to write an advice column for a major employment agency website for 10 years or more, is probably as reliable advice as you get without actually having your own specific case heard.
But the fundamental problem with any legal discussion is exactly that - as one question the guy answered in his column “can I sue and win?” The lawyer always answers “It depends”. Every case is different, every assertion may be changed by new facts or a cranky appeals court. Every specific case cite has a counter case cite, which I’m sure any lawyer knows.
Again, the short answer for the OP is - constructive dismissal is very difficult to prove. One of my cites gives an example where a poisonous workplace actually won a case; but it was extreme, included punching holes in doors. (Cite: Saunders v. Chateau des Charmes, 2004)
If she is made to work serious overtime “off the clock” she should document the situation and report it, put in a claim for the money.
If she is moved she should get the terms in writing (email?) so there is a trail if the details are contested. But if you are working for an agency that supplies Company A and Company B, then if they send you back to A for a week, that could be considered part of the job.