Three weeks ago in this space, I argued that working notice — telling an employee their job will end after a defined period — is the most underused tool in Canadian employment law.
Employers wrote me by the dozens to say it was a revelation. Some were astonished they had never considered it. Others said they had, but admitted they lacked the courage to try it.
So, let's continue the conversation.
Working notice is not only legally sound; it is (counterintuitively) more humane than firing. It spares employees the humiliation of the sudden escort out the door and gives them time to plan their next step. Employers save money, avoid the "severance lottery" culture (more on this below) and sometimes even get a redemption story along the way.
Here are the lessons every employer should learn.
The classic firing ends with a banker's box and the dreaded "walk of shame." Working notice eliminates that. The employee keeps their salary, benefits and stature while quietly preparing their next move. They leave on their own feet, not under guard. Dignity is a valuable thing.
We all know employees who say, "I hate this job but I'm hanging on until they fire me so I can get my package."
That mindset corrodes morale. When companies establish a reputation for working notice, that culture dies overnight. No one lingers hoping for a severance jackpot because they know it isn't coming.
The biggest mistake managers make is waiting until the employee's frustration boils over. By then, the employer is panicked: "We can't keep them another day."
But in most cases, the performance issues have been obvious for months. That is when, as every employer knows, the clock should have started. Delay is expensive. Every week you postpone is a week of severance a judge will later impose.
Some employees, once given working notice and faced with the reality of their job ending, suddenly improve. Fear focuses the mind. Occasionally, the employee becomes valuable again. If so, employers can keep them. If not, the exit is already scheduled. Either way, the employer wins.
Employers sabotage themselves when they decide to "just pay out" an underperformer out of pity. Too often, that generosity is rewarded with a lawyer's letter demanding more. If compassion replaces process, litigation results.
Even when lawyers get involved, working notice is resilient. Claims of constructive dismissal or poisoned workplace generally fail if the employee's role remains unchanged, their benefits intact and their departure private. The only real debate becomes: Was the notice period long enough? And when employers are reasonable and listen to legal advice, courts side with them.
The same principles apply to older workers. There are two kinds. The first are stars you wish would never retire. With them, succession planning and phased retirement make sense, if they wish it. The second are those who treat "near retirement" as an excuse not to learn new skills or perform difficult parts of the job. For them, the same rule applies: either recommit or accept working notice toward departure.
Working notice is not just cheaper than severance. It is smarter, fairer and, yes, more compassionate. It preserves respect, improves culture and prevents employers from funding the "walk of shame" with oversized severance cheques.
I said in my last column that working notice extinguishes wrongful dismissal claims. This week, I will add this: it also extinguishes the excuses employers make for avoiding it.
Employers who embrace working notice will save themselves considerable monies. Those who do not will continue to pay lawyers like me to clean up their messes.