Newsletters

157

Recall to Work After the Pandemic: Everything Will Finally be Alright.

Few are the entrepreneurs who did not have to make heart-breaking decisions when the COVID-19 pandemic struck last March: reduction of work hours, temporary wage reductions and, regretfully, terminations and layoffs.

If the governmental emergency measures[1] have offered a certain respite on the hardships endured by the workers and employers alike, both anticipate the eventual return to a certain form of normalcy. Looking forward to the progressive reopening of given economic sectors as of the coming May 4 and 11, here are a few practical tips to keep in mind when planning the recall to work of laid off employees.[2]

Unionized Context

Naturally, the employer must refer to the terms of the collective agreement. Assuming the latter entitles recall privileges for more than six months, the employer must keep on its radar the earliest of the following dates: the anniversary of the layoff or the expiry of the recall privilege. It is indeed at that moment that the employer is bound to pay the compensatory indemnity, unless the employees are not recalled because of a superior force (force majeure) or that they are recalled to work for a period at least equal to the duration of the notice they would have got.

Typically, employers will be required to recall their unionized employees by seniority and, when applicable, enforce their “bumping” right on the positions of their less senior colleagues. Collective agreements usually set a precise and constraining mechanism that employers ought to revise with attention and follow to avoid grievances and arbitrations.

Non-unionized Context

Employers here have a greater freedom of action. Provided that they exercise their management right in a reasonable fashion that is justified by the organizational needs, employers can recall their workers according to various criteria, seniority being merely one among them. As always, employers must however avoid to base their decision on forbidden grounds, for example, in retaliation to the exercise of a right provided by the Act respecting labour standards or in discrimination of right protected by the Charter of human rights and freedoms.

Likewise, employers must ensure that the recall of non-unionized employees is made no later than six months after the layoff, failing which the latter will be considered as a collective dismissal[3] that will expose the employer to pay the required indemnity.

RSS has recently published on the applicable statutory notices and indemnities when a layoff that was meant to be temporary approaches the decisive six-month mark : Achieving Orderly Layoffs During COVID-19

Since each situation is unique and requires a detailed examination, our Labour and Employment Law Group remains available to help entrepreneurs in planning and executing the recall of their workers. [1] The Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, among others [2] For employers of Quebec jurisdiction. [3] When at least 10 employees of the same establishment during a two-month period are affected.

157

Articles in the same category

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]

Not So Intelligent!

Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation […]

So? Is it settled or not?

In an interim decision in Djaferian v. Spanoudakis,rendered on February 20, 2026, the Superior Court had to determine whether an offer made 15 months earlier, prior to the institution of proceedings, could still be accepted and result in a transaction. Summary of Facts and Timeline The Plaintiff, a co-owner who sustained water damage to his private […]

Office Parties and the Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment

In De Sousa and Corporation interactive Eidos, 2026 QCTAT 4, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) appears to have broadened the scope of an employer’s obligation to prevent harassment. The decision arose from a complaint filed by a former employee who had been sexually assaulted at her home by a colleague following an office party organized by the […]

Should Economic Losses Be Considered Property Damage?

The Quebec Court of Appeal in Zurich, Compagnie d’assurances SA c. CRT Construction inc., recently overturned the Superior Court’s decision on the interpretation of a construction insurance policy. Facts CRT Construction Inc. (“CRT”) was retained by the City of Montreal (“City”) to perform major construction work at the Atwater water treatment plant. At the City’s request, CRT […]