Terminating apprenticeships have greater repurcussions than simply ending a job
Question: If we dismiss someone on an apprenticeship with or without cause, are there considerations beyond dismissing a normal employee that should be taken into account?
Answer: Termination of an apprentice potentially raises very different considerations than the same action in relation to a normal employee. The contract of apprenticeship is one that is stringently regulated by legislation in every province. Although there are differences from province to province, the overall intent of such legislation is the same — to regulate entry into designated trades and provide a uniform system for the training and qualification of tradespersons. Legislation typically prescribes the content of an apprenticeship contract in significant respects, including the reciprocal obligations of the parties, the term of the contract, the number of hours to be worked and the rate of pay.
Apprenticeship contracts are subject to monitoring and may be suspended or terminated by the appropriate regulatory body. The degree to which the legislation limits the parties’ ability to terminate an apprenticeship varies. Accordingly, the statutory and regulatory regime in force in a particular province is an important resource for determining if an apprenticeship contract may be terminated and, if so, where there are any limitations.
Some provinces specify when the parties may terminate a contract prior to its conclusion and prohibit early termination on any other grounds. In Ontario, for example, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act prohibits the termination of an apprenticeship contract except upon the death of either party, mutual express or implied consent or cancellation of the contract for cause.
Other provinces take a different approach. Manitoba’s Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act simply authorizes a party to an apprenticeship agreement to terminate it without the consent of the other party. However, in Marchen v. Dams Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd., the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled such a provision did not allow termination on reasonable notice if the contract was for a fixed term.
The terms of the individual contract may curtail the available grounds for termination. In Marchen, a standard form contractual term compelling the employer to “keep each Apprentice/Trainee employed so long as work is available for the Apprentice/Trainee,” would have permitted early termination of the contract had there actually been no available work. However, the employer failed to establish the lack of work was legitimate.
In awarding damages, the court in Marchen took guidance from the decision in the English case of Dunk v. George Waller & Son Ltd. That case identified damages for breach of an apprenticeship contract in terms of three expectations arising from such contracts: a money payment during the period of apprenticeship; instruction and training leading to the acquisition of skills which would be of future value; and status.
In Marchen, the apprentice was awarded his direct financial loss, plus damages of $25,000 for the loss of training and loss of status. In making an award of $100,000 punitive damages, the court took into account the employer’s deception was particularly reprehensible when directed toward a young apprentice wrongfully terminated from his first full-time job because of unfounded suspicions. The degree of vulnerability of the apprentice and the potential harm directed specifically at him were aggravating factors.
For more information see:
•Marchen v. Dams Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd., 2009 CarswellBC 756 (B.C. S.C.).
•Dunk v. George Waller & Son Ltd., [1970] 2 All E.R. 630 (Eng. C.A.).
