Introduction to Employment Law
HRM 0110
HR Legislation
Unit 1: Introduction to Employment Law
Gavel and Scales
Introduction
In this first unit of the Human Resources Legislation course, we will look at the structure of the Canadian court systems, the levels of court, and how judges make decisions. We will explore employment law, and consider how employment law is ******e up of the common law and of government regulations.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this unit, you should be able to:
describe the different regimes involved with employment law;
identify the levels of court involved in the legal system;
understand the importance of case law; and
locate and interpret a legal decision.
Assigned Reading
Read
Doorey, D. J. (2016). The law of work: Common law and the regulation of work. Toronto ON: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited.
Chapter 1
Department of Justice Canada. (2015). Canada’s Court System
Department of Justice Canada. (2017). About Canada’s System of Justice
How to Proceed
Read the unit notes.
Complete assigned reading.
Complete the exercise in Chapter 1 in your textbook. This activity is an opportunity to learn how to navigate CanLII and will not need to be submitted for marks.
Respond to the topics posted in the discussion forum.
Unit Notes
Employment relationships are governed through three different regimes: the common law regime; the regulatory law regime; and collective bargaining regime.
Common Law Regime
The common law regime is ******e up of the law of contracts and the law of torts. It is a system in which decisions ******e by judges guide later decisions. For example, two people cannot agree on what the contract that they have between them actually means. One person sues the other one, and they end up in front of a judge. The judge interprets the contract based on what other judges in higher courts have decided in past court decisions.
When thinking about the common law regime, think about how important predictability is within your workplace. In many workplaces, the policy manual acts as the standard that must be followed. Is it important that the policy manual and procedures be interpreted the same way for every employee? Have you seen situations where policies or procedures were interpreted differently for different employees, or employees were held to different standards? Do you think that is fair?
Regulatory Law Regime
The regulatory regime is ******e up of government regulations whose focus is to protect employees by imposing mandatory standards. For example, each provincial government has a statute or regulation that sets the mi******** amount ********employees********** paid **********r employer.
We will be talking about the laws that regulate work throughout this course. The laws that have been put into place by governments are generally protective, in that the laws are trying to impose minimum standards that an employer must meet. Without the protective laws, there is a vast power imbalance between employees and employers.
Do you think that the laws that you work with are fair? Do you think that they are too much in favour of the employee or the employer? Why would that law be put in place?
Collective Bargaining Regime
The collective bargaining regime, also called labour law, is ******e up of employees joining together to negotiate collectively for things they would like in their workplace, such as higher wages, more holidays, etc. We do not cover this regime in this course.
Canada’s Justice System
Canada’s justice system is comprised of multiple levels of court, as well as the distinction between criminal and civil law. We’re only concerned with civil law in this course. The external readings that are assigned for this unit will help you understand in more detail the levels of court and what powers the different courts have to make decisions. As you read about the levels, jurisdiction, and processes involved with each level of court, think about any interactions that you’ve had with the court system, or that you’ve heard about from friends or family. What was their impression? Did you or they understand what was happening?
After completing your readings, complete the exercise in Chapter 1. You will be looking at many cases throughout this course, so it is important to understand how to find them through CanLII. As you read the case, think about the employee and the employer that are actually involved, and how you think the decision impacted each of them. Do you think the employer changed their practices because of the judge’s decision?
References
Doorey, D. J. (2016). The law of work: Common law and the regulation of work. Toronto ON: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited.
Department of Justice Canada. (2015). Canada’s court system. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/pdf/courten.pdf.
Department of Justice Canada. (2017). About Canada’s system of justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/index.html
*The question to be answered as follow:
Case Analysis
Complete the exercise on page 13 of your textbook. You will be looking at many cases throughout this course, so it is important to understand how to find them through CanLII. Think about the employee and the employer that are actually involved. How you think the decision impacted each of them? Do you think the employer changed their practices because of the judge’s decision? (Write a response of up to 400 words to the question)
Reply to the two posts from your classmates in your discussion group.
The following are 2 posts from other students (175 Words for each post):
1- Kelly v. American Airlines, 1981
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1651/1981canlii1651.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUIndyb25nZnVsIGRpc21pc3NhbCIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=41
Name of the case: Kelly v. American Airlines Inc. et al., 1981 CanLII 1651 (ON SC)
Date of decision: May 8, 1981
Where? Ontario
Who decided? Ontario High Court of Justice
What was the case about?
Appeal to remove slander action — Rule 73.
Defendant claims wrongful inducement of breach of contract as determined by internal investigation, conducted by American Airlines. The allegations from American Airlines are that the plaintiff placed himself in several conflicts of interest and that he misappropriated non-reven************ pass************ed to wrongful dismissal and joined slander action against American Airlines.
Who won?
The defendants won this position.
How you think the decision impacted each of them?
I feel like the allowed appeal for the removal of the slander action against American Airlines may have felt disheartening for the plaintiff. The court felt the balance of convenience in this case favors severing the cause of action in slander at this stage of the proceedings rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of the trial Judge. Special pleadings are required in a slander case and combined discovery and production would be extremely confusing. If the plaintiff felt he was being slandered and intimidated, this should have been considered as a separate action.
As for American Airlines, this was likely a breeze. They’re a huge corporation, and have lawyers specialized in human resource affairs. It’s no surprise they were able to find Rule 73 and find dismal for this action.
Do you think the employer changed their practices because of the judge’s decision?
I do not feel American Airlines would have changed ways of practice. Why would they have to? The tone of the law states that basically you shouldn’t have these two types of actions simultaneously – alm************ pass************>
References
CanLII, 2020. Kelly v. American Airlines, 1981. Retrieved from
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1651/1981canlii
2- Northwood v. Bristol Aerospace Limited, 2004 – Wrongful Dismissal
Link to chosen case:
https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2004/2004mbqb66/2004mbqb66.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUIndyb25nZnVsIGRpc21pc3NhbCIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=178
Name of the case:
Northwood v. Bristol Aerospace Limited, 2004 MBQB 66 (CanLII)
Case decided:
March 11, 2004
What province:
Manitoba
Decided by court or tribunal:
Court
Which court:
Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba
What was the dispute:
A long- time employee sued its employer for wrongful dismissal. A middle management employee of 23 years was promoted to a position approximately eight months before his termination. The employee was terminated without cause with salary continuing for 12 months with some benefits. The plaintiff did not agree to the offer and the salary was cut off after 6 weeks. The plaintiff was 48 years old in a specialized job in a specialized industry. It was admitted the plaintiff was a competent and diligent employee. He was not able to find employment, applying for 100 jobs in 19 months after termination.
Which party won:
The Plaintiff
How do you think the decision impacted each of them?
The plaintiff Mr. Northwood should be satisfied with the fairness of the settlement. The employee received 18 months salary continuance compared to the first settlement of 12 months the employee did not agree with.
For the defendant Bristol Aerospace Limited, this loss should play a factor and be a wake-up call to do business in a fair manner.
Do you think the employer changed their practices because of the judge’s decision?
In the event of future layoffs or terminations I think the company would change their practices. This loss should set a precedence in the way they go about business. Hopefully Bristol Aerospace Ltd. learned it was unacceptable to stop monies after 6 weeks when their original offer was 12 months. I think it was negligence on their part.
