Newsletters

174

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.

174

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

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”), […]