Answer
Employer Termination without Cause
It is apparent that both the employer and the employee seek an amicable agreement that recognizes their contribution to one another. The lengthy notice periods would most likely benefit both parties. The employer would find ample time to seek a better replacement, while the employee would have reasonable time to seek employment (Thornicroft, 2013). Statutes ought not to override precedent set in previous cases since the latter are more rigid and unfairly uniform than the latter (Lublin, 2009). Any notice terms related to shortening of the notice period are more likely exploitive and therefore ought not to be considered by court. The circumstances under which an employee could have sought the employment may be unclear. Probably they may have been desperate at the time and overlooked the seriousness of their consent to the terms.
Post Response
The central argument according to the post seem to be that from a legal and probably ethical perspective, then the employer stands above the employee since they are protecting not only their business, but also the employment of others. Such a view is biased basing on the fact that both employers and employees need each other. Longer terms would benefit both that is unless numerous employees get terminated at a short notice in which case the employer would most likely bear a significant brunt. However, stifling the power of a contract agreement mentioning shorter notice time is a worthy argument. Employers should not be allowed to use their supposed employment power to enforce unethical or even illegal agreements even though employees would agree.
References
Lublin, D. A. (2009). Wrongful Dismissal-Bad Faith Damages in Canadian Employment Law: Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays. UNBLJ, 59, 153-165.
Thornicroft, K. W. (2013). The Assessment of Reasonable Notice by Canadian Appellate Courts from 2000 to 2011. Canadian Lab. & Emp. LJ, 17, 1-130.
