You should always get in touch with an employment law specialist before changing the nature of the work or an employee`s contract. Exceeding leistist is easy to do and can lead to considerable costs for you and your business, if your employee is to sue for constructive dismissal. Mr. Neilson J. indicated that this was an “additional benefit” to the worker. However, it is not known what this additional benefit should be. According to the author, the nature of this benefit would inevitably depend on the nature of the position held by an employee. Some benefits may be increased vacation pay, termination requirements, life insurance, severance pay or health and dental money. The sufficient consideration remains open at this stage; However, this is an important issue that is likely to have a significant impact on employers and workers across Canada. Following the signing of the first contract on August 25, 2015, employers received legal advice and found that a monthly month-to-month contract was preferable to them.
Mr. Quach was initially reluctant to accept the employer`s changes. But on September 28, 2015, he was informed that the signature was mandatory for his new work to begin. After leaving his former job to work with the accused, Mr. Quach agreed. The second contract was signed on September 28, 2015. But then, on September 30, 2015, before the job actually started, Mr. Quach was fired.
However, I have found that, for an uncertain period, the defendant must prove more than continuing the applicant`s employment on heavier terms to provide appropriate consideration. An additional benefit must be paid to the applicant to agree to the new conditions. I think the accused did not prove it here. There is nothing in the terms of the contract that confers an advantage on the applicant. Nor do I see a basis for concluding that the signature provides him with greater job security, neither explicit nor implicit. The applicant remained as a probation officer, both under the contract and under the law, and was released without notice for the first six months of his activity. If, subsequently, the contract provided for more generous termination provisions than those provided for by law, they were less generous after several years of employment than its general and legal rights. It is then absolutely necessary that you put an appropriate message (based on your common law claims, if they are terminated). They must not make substantial changes to their employment during the notice period.
It remains to be seen to what extent this development may affect labour law – and in particular the scenario in which treaty changes limit or suppress workers` rights. However, a new decision by the Bc Court of Appeal, Quach v. Mitrux Services Ltd., 2020 BCCA 25, gives us a first sense of the direction the law could take when it comes to changes to the employment contract that do not take into account the employee. This is why labour law (such as contract law in general) has always required new thinking to create or vary a contract (see Singh v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 2002 BCCA 452). In Krieser v. Active Chemicals Ltd, 2005 BCSC 1370, the Bc Supreme Court summarized the state of the law: according to the original employment contract, the employee`s obligation, that is, her consideration of the employer, was to assume her responsibilities, including assisting the employer in applying for the Hong Kong stock exchange listing, when the employer`s consideration was the compensation offered to her.
After reviewing the relevant evidence and circumstances of the case, the Court decided that the endorsement did not require the worker to fulfill an additional obligation that was not originally provided for in the original employment contract.