Does a company policy manual have a binding effect?
In the realm of employment law, company policies play a crucial role in establishing guidelines, standards, and expectations for employees. They serve as essential tools for employers to communicate their requirements and maintain a productive and harmonious work environment. However, the enforceability of these policies can vary, and a breach by an employee may or may not lead to dismissal for cause. This blog explores the complex landscape surrounding the enforceability of company policies and the potential risks of termination for cause for violation of such policies.
Courts in Canada have held that if the terms of the policy manual are to be binding, it must be concluded that they have contractual force. The usual elements of a contract must be established: a concluded agreement, consideration, and contractual intention. It is important to note that not all company policies are considered enforceable contracts. Courts have consistently recognized that policies can carry contractual force if they meet specific criteria. One such criterion is that compliance with the policy must be a condition of the employment contract. This means that the policy is explicitly incorporated into the contract or that the contract refers to the policy as a binding document.
In the past, courts have refused to accept company manuals as binding contracts upon finding that the employee did not sign any document consenting to be bound by the manual. However, consent can be manifested by conduct that evidence that both parties knew of the binding nature of the manual and showed a common intention to be bound by it. For example, in one case the fact that the employee continued to work even after being given a copy of the manual was considered by the court to be insufficient to establish acceptance of the terms of the manual by the employee.
Conversely, if a policy is merely presented as an informational guide, with a tone that suggests it is for reference purposes only, it is less likely to be deemed a contract. In such cases, employees may not be bound by the policy, and a violation would not necessarily constitute just cause for termination. Additionally, if the terms of the policy are overly vague or broad, it may lack the necessary specificity to be enforceable as a contract.
Even when a policy is found to be a binding contract, employers must still meet a high threshold to establish just cause for dismissal. Courts have outlined several factors that must be demonstrated. Firstly, the rules of the policy must have been distributed to employees and made known to them. The mere existence of a policy without proper communication and dissemination may weaken an employer’s argument for just cause.
Consistent enforcement is another crucial element. Employers must demonstrate that the policy has been consistently applied to all employees and that violations have consistently resulted in disciplinary actions. Selective enforcement or turning a blind eye to infractions may undermine an employer’s position in claiming just cause for termination.
The reasonableness of the policy is also a significant factor. Courts will assess whether the policy is fair, rational, and proportionate to the legitimate objectives of the company. If a policy is overly restrictive, arbitrary, or oppressive, it may be deemed unreasonable and unenforceable.
Furthermore, for a breach to constitute just cause, it must be shown that the violation of the policy amounts to a violation of an essential condition of the employment contract or a breach of faith inherent in the work relationship. This requires establishing a substantial connection between the breach and the employment relationship’s core expectations. Minor or isolated infractions are generally insufficient as the threshold for just cause is generally very high. For example, courts have found no just cause even where employees have used profanity, and displayed outbursts of temper and physical violence. Conversely, courts have found just cause where the employee has used extremely foul language and displayed deliberate and intentional insubordination.
In summary, the enforceability of company policies against employees and the risks of dismissal for cause involve intricate legal considerations. Company policies can be binding contracts if they meet the necessary requirements, but not all policies achieve this status. Employers must ensure proper communication, consistent enforcement, and reasonable terms in their policies to strengthen their position in claiming just cause for termination. Conversely, employees should be aware of their rights and understand the nature and enforceability of the policies governing their employment. Consulting with legal professionals can provide valuable guidance in navigating these complex issues.
CONTACT OSUJI & SMITH CALGARY EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS NOW
Author: Imtiaz Hafiz
