This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
When an employer terminates an employee without just cause in Ontario, it must provide either reasonable notice of the termination or payment in lieu of notice. The length of the requisite notice period is based on several factors under common law, including age, character of the worker's employment and length of the employee's service.
Under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), two companies may be treated as one where the intent or effect of their carrying on related business under common control has been to directly or indirectly defeat the intent and purpose of the ESA.
The common law has developed a more confined "common employer doctrine" to deal with such situations. But, unlike under the ESA, it does not matter whether the intent or effect was to avoid severance obligations. Instead, the courts try to determine whether the alleged common employers could each be said to have been the worker's employer.
Employees often assert that their service with prior and/or related employers should be combined for purposes of calculating their entitlements on termination.
The common employer doctrine recognizes the fact that businesses can be complex organizations, with varied corporate structures. Depending on the circumstances, the doctrine can operate to impose liability on entities that do not have a direct contractual relationship with an employee.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Divisional Court overturned a trial judge's ruling that the first corporation's obligations to employees "flowed" to the second.
[SHRM members-only platform: SHRM Connect]
The corporations at issue were family businesses. The plaintiff had worked for Legnotech since October 2008. After a family dispute, one of the Legnotech shareholders set up his own company, Verona. Both businesses continued to operate on the same premises, and many Legnotech employees left to work for Verona.
The plaintiff started working for Verona in January 2012. He continued to work on the same premises, and his employment duties were nearly identical to those he had been performing for Legnotech. Verona terminated his employment in August 2013.
The divisional court found that Legnotech and Verona were not common employers. The employees who went to work for Verona were made aware that they were moving from one company to a separate, new company.
Verona took over the lease of the premises from Legnotech but did not purchase any of its assets. Although they had common shareholders and officers, they were separately controlled entities.
Further, the plaintiff had signed a new employment contract when he joined Verona, which made no reference to Legnotech. He also ceased taking instructions from and performing work for Legnotech, which remained in operation after he left. As such, the divisional court found that the employee had resigned from Legnotech in January 2012, even though he did not formally submit his resignation.
As a result of this finding, the divisional court reduced the trial judge's award for wrongful dismissal damages by over $10,000, from $13,333 to $3,077, based on a much shorter notice period.
Amaral v Verona Floors Inc., Ont. Sup. Ct. Div. Ct., 2016 ONSC 5763 (Oct. 12, 2016).
Professional Pointer: A corporate shell game will not prevent employees from asserting their rights, but neither can they go after the "deep pockets" just because two companies are tangentially related.
Amanda Boyce is an attorney with Stringer LLP, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Toronto.
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
CA Resources at Your Fingertips
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies