Many of our blog entries about employment law decisions mention the importance of employees taking a close look at their employment agreements to understand their and their employer’s rights and responsibilities fully. This can become especially important in the event of termination when an employee wants to know what they can expect concerning a termination package.

In a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Justice, an employee was offered a part-time job for a period of two months. After that time, her work would be reviewed with the possibility of continuing. When she was terminated just days after receiving the offer, she sued the employer with the argument that she had a two-month fixed-term contract and was owed wages for that same period.

Employee is terminated just days after accepting job offer

The employee had been working part-time for the employer from April 18 to June 15, 2023. She told the court she had been offered a full-time position with more responsibilities on that date. She told the court a board member from the organization offered her the position, which she immediately accepted.

A few days later, the employer said that the board member did not have the authority to offer the employee this new position and terminated her six days after she accepted it. The employer said the employee was a probationary employee and could be terminated without cause.

The court went into some detail about how the job offer came about. The employee had been working in her part-time position for $20/hour. At a board meeting (the employer is a non-profit), she told the board that she would no longer work part-time for that rate. She proposed a new position for her as Director of Development of Programming. After proposing, the employee left the board meeting. An initial offer was approved by the board but rejected by the employee. Following this, the employee approved and accepted a second offer, which was a position at $5,000/month for two months, with a review to follow.

A few days later, the board held an emergency meeting to terminate the employee. They did not claim the termination was made with cause.

Was a job offer made? And if so, what were its terms?

The board first argued that the member who made the job offer to the employee needed the authority to do so. In looking at how previous job offers were made, the court found that the same board member had been given the authority to offer jobs to the same member in the past, stating nothing was done to restrict her authority to do so. There was no evidence that the board attempted to stop the offer. Besides two of the board members voting against making the offer, nothing else was done, and the vote still passed.

The court then asked whether the contract was a fixed-term or probationary employment contract. If it was the latter, it could be terminated without cause and notice. There was no written contract, which meant the court had to hear evidence from each party on the offer. The employee assumed that there was a fixed two-month contract with a salary of $5,000 per month. The employer’s position was that it was a probationary contract.

The court said that a fixed-term employee can be considered a contract worker hired to work until a specific date set by the completion of work or a specific day. The court wrote that this date must be explicitly stated in the written or verbal contract. Both parties must agree that once the deadline is reached, the employment automatically ends with no reasonable notice required.

Finally, the court wrote that a fixed-term contract is an exception in employment contracts, not the standard. This was established in a 2009 decision from Manitoba.

In the meantime, there is an understanding that a probationary employee must prove to the employer that they are suitable for regular employment as a permanent employee. Once again, the court stated that both the employee and the employer must recognize that future employment depends on performance during the probationary period. The contract should also clarify that the employee understands the relationship may end during probation.

In which category did the employee’s contract fall?

The court found that the employment contract in this situation was probationary. This was based on the consistent understanding of all parties that the employee’s contract was subject to an extension based on performance over the two-month period. The employee agreed that she understood the employee would likely want to review her performance after this time. As a result, the employer was not entitled to be paid in full, though the court did see fit to award her two-week pay of $2,500.

Experienced Calgary Employment Lawyers Advising You On Your Employment Law Matters

The lawyers and staff at DBH Law believe in relationship-building and fostering strong, long-term connections with our clients. This approach allows us to provide tailored, trusted, bespoke advice to help clients manage risks and reach their goals. We pride ourselves on that most of our clients were referred to us by former and current clients. To learn more about how we can help you, us online or by phone at 403-252-9937.