A. INTRODUCTION
At common law, employees who are
dismissed without cause are entitled to receive reasonable notice or pay in
lieu of notice. In the past, courts have grappled with the issue as to whether
employees who occupy clerical or unskilled positions should be subject to a
“hard cap” or ceiling on the notice or pay in lieu of notice they are entitled
to receive. In the recent decision of Di Tomaso v. Crown Metal Packaging
Canada LP, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the employer’s argument that there is, or
ought to be, a twelve month cap on reasonable notice for unskilled, non-managerial
employees. This Bulletin reviews this decision, which is an important statement
of the law as to reasonable notice entitlements for many workers, including
those who work for charities and not-for-profit organizations.
B. THE DECISION
Antonio Di Tomaso was
employed for 33 years as a mechanic and press maintainer for Crown Metal Packaging.
His job involved setting up the metal manufacturing line, minor repair work,
and assisting the millwright with mechanical work on machines. Crown Metal
closed the facility where Di Tomaso worked on February 26, 2010, ending his
employment at age 64.
Dissatisfied with the
notice of termination provided, Mr. Di Tomaso sued his employer for twenty-four
months’ pay in lieu of notice. In its defence, Crown Metal argued that given
the type of employment, which was characterized as “unskilled”, their former employee
should be subject to a twelve month cap on his reasonable notice. In making
this argument, Crown Metal relied on an earlier Ontario Court of Appeal
decision in Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co. which, it argued, established a cap of 12 months on the notice required to be
provided for clerical or unskilled workers.
In reply, Mr. Di Tomaso relied
on a later decision of Ontario Court of Appeal in Minott v. O’Shanter Development
Company Ltd.,where
the court stated: “...[T]he imposition of an arbitrary 12 month ceiling for all
non-managerial employees detracts from the flexibility of the Bardal test and restricts the ability of courts to take account of all factors relevant
to each case and of changing social and economic conditions.”
The Bardal test mentioned above refers to the Ontario High Court decision in Bardal v.
Globe & Mail Ltd., which held that reasonable notice periods are to decided with reference to the
circumstances of each particular case, having regard to the character of the
employment, length of the employee’s service to the employer, employee age, and
the availability of alternate employment given the employee’s training,
qualifications and experience. In upholding the decision of the Superior Court
of Justice, the Court of Appeal agreed that a reasonable notice period of
twenty-two months for Mr. Di Tomaso was appropriate in the circumstances.
The rationale to impose
a twelve month cap on reasonable notice for clerical or unskilled employees is
based on the assumption that such employees will have an easier time finding
comparable alternative employment than managerial or highly skilled employees.
In response to this argument, the Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the
following passage from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision in Medis Health
and Pharmaceutical Services Inc. v. Bramble, at para, 64:
“The proposition that junior employees
have an easier time finding suitable alternate employment is no longer, if it
ever was, a matter of common knowledge. Indeed, it is an empirically challenged
proposition that cannot be confirmed by resources of indisputable accuracy.”
C. CONCLUSION
The Di Tomaso decision clearly
rejects the notion of a hard cap on reasonable notice for clerical or unskilled
workers. For those many charities and not-for-profit organizations which employ
that category of worker, this decision illustrates the need for written
employment contracts, with clear termination provisions. A properly drafted
employment contract will have the employer and employee agree at the outset on
a reasonable notice period, rather than at the end of the employment
relationship, when coming to an agreement may be more difficult. However, to be
enforceable, it is important that the agreed notice period at least meet the
minimum requirements as set out in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, or
other applicable legislation in the jurisdiction where the organization
operates.