employment canada service notice
Does the labor code supersede an employment contract for notice service? (Canada, NS)
<p>Just a technical question.</p>
<p>My employment contract states that notices must be served by Courier, Mail or Email and that my notice period is 30 days from service.</p>
<p>The NS Labor Code states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Notice of termination by employer</p>
<p>75 (1) Every employer required by Section 72 to give notice of termination shall give notice in writing addressed to each person whose employment is to be terminated and shall serve the notice personally or by registered mail.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I was personally handed an NoT (without cause) on July 19th but had to request an email copy which I received on Aug 2nd.</p>
<p>Do I have grounds to say that my 30-day notice period begins on Aug 2nd or does the Labor Standards overrule this?</p>
<p>I'm being incredibly petty about this because although I don't mind about the lay-off, the company is sinking, and I don't want to give them leeway to abuse process, something they have been doing all along.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Does the labor code supersede an employment contract for notice service? Do I have grounds to say that my 30-day notice period begins on Aug 2nd or does the Labor Standards overrule this?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The employer is likely to prevail in this matter because what you describe would not be considered a <em>material</em> breach of contract.</p>
<p>At the outset, section 6 of the <a href="https://www.nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/labour%20standards%20code.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NS Labour Code</a> defers to &quot;<em>any [...] contract or arrangement that are more favourable to [the employee] than his rights or benefits under this Act</em>&quot;. This gives the impression that you could stick to the literal terms of the contract. Generally speaking, though, it is presumed that the parties' intent behind listing the approved methods of service is to ensure that the affected party is made aware of an imminent termination.</p>
<p>By &quot;<em>personally hand[ing] an NoT</em>&quot; to you, the employer satisfied the aforementioned purpose in a way that it (1) preempted the risk that the courier or mail may fail to deliver the notice to you, and (2) made you aware earlier than if delivered to you by a third-party.</p>
<p>Accordingly, sticking to the literal terms of the contract would be considered ritualistic and would not withstand the employer's choice of a method that is foreseeably and actually more straight-forward and more effective.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don't want to give them leeway to abuse process, something they have been doing all along.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Consider filing a grievance regarding those instances of abuse. This matter in particular would not be considered an abuse of process.</p>
