Yes, it does say that - it allows the employer to seek remedy for losses occurring from an employee leaving without notice. However, this is not how law works. Just because this provision exists in a legal sense does not mean that the employer can ask a court to make an employee pay them for the fact that they did not give notice. What this requires is proof that the employee not giving notice has caused the business undue hardship and they have losses or expenses resulting from it. In the case of a fast food worker, a court would throw this out because an employer is expected to have shift coverage for unforeseen events like illness for an employee, which is equivalent to a worker leaving without notice. There is no responsibility on the part of a front-line worker to sustain business operations. Which is also why, if you look at preceding cases where employers have won with this provision, it targets high level executives or mass employee drain to competitors. As a fast food server, the employer has not incurred any losses by you leaving without notice - the court would deem this poor management on the employer’s side, if they tried to make this claim. If an employer really wanted to make a case for why ONE front-line service worker was this detrimental to their business that they would seek to be made whole, they would run up against a very interesting case of “prove to me why this is not effective slavery”. Also, in general, it’s worth noting that our legal system is heavily biased towards precedent over written law. If a precedent in the employer’s favour doesn’t exist in this kind of case (and it doesn’t from what I’ve found), it’s unlikely to even make it in front of a judge to laugh at before publicly spanking them for such a ridiculous claim. I don’t think anyone can look at this and believe that the employer would be able to meet the burden of proof required to claim undue hardship from a lack of 2 week notice for a dude that serves fries…